title="achlus" class="grk">ἄχλυς in the sense of gloom (of οὐράνιον ἄχος). So the Homeric Cimmerians are derived from כִּמְרִירִי (Job), denoting darkness.

(4.) Lastly, I submit with great diffidence the following examination of the words Dorus and the Æolian Minyæ, which I shall attempt to derive from words denoting sun and moon respectively.

The word Dorus I assume to be connected with the first part of the names Dry-opes and Dol-opes. The metathesis in the first case seems sanctioned by the analogy of the Sanscrit drî and Greek δείρω, and the mutation of l and r in the second is too common in Greek and Latin to admit of any doubt, e.g. ἀρ-γαλέος and ἀλγαλέτος; Sol and Soracte. With this premised, I think we may be justified in connecting the following words with one another.

Dores, Dryopes with Σείριος (of Σιός and Δῖος) Θέρος, the Scythian sun-god Οἰτό-συρυς, the Egyptian O-siris, and perhaps the Hebrew דוֹר and Greek δηρὸς (the course of the sun being the emblem of eternity).—Dol-opes with Sol, εἵλη, Selli, &c.

On the other hand, the neighbouring Minyæ seem connected with μινύθω, μίνυνθα, minus,—all with the sense of decreasing or waning; hence referable, both in sense and (I fancy) in derivation, to Greek μὴν, and Latin men-sis.

J. H. J.

SHAKSPEARE READINGS, NO. IX.

"The ass was to wear the shoes, and not to bear them on his back, as Theobald supposed, and therefore would read shows. The 'shoes of Hercules' were as commonly alluded to by our old poets, as the ex pede Herculem was a familiar allusion of the learned." (Mr. Knight in 1839.)

Fourteen years' additional consideration has not altered Mr. Knight's view of this passage. In 1853 we find him putting forth a prospectus for a new edition of Shakspeare, to be called "The Stratford Edition," various portions from which he sets before the public by way of sample. Here we have over again the same note as above, a little diversified, and placed parallel to Theobald's edition in this way:

Now who, in reading these parallel notes, but would suppose that it is Mr. Knight who restores shoes to the text, and that it is Mr. Knight who points out the common allusion by our old poets to the shoes of Hercules? Who would imagine that the substance of this correction of Theobald was written by Steevens a couple of generations back, and that, consequently, Theobald's proposed alteration had never been adopted?

I should not think of pointing out this, but that Mr. Knight himself, in this same prospectus, has taken Mr. Collier to task for the very same thing; that is, for taking credit, in his Notes and Emendations, for all the folio MS. corrections, whether known or unknown, necessary or unnecessary.

Indeed, the very words of Mr. Knight's complaint against Mr. Collier are curiously applicable to himself:

"It requires the most fixed attention to the nice distinctions of such constantly-recurring 'notes and emendations,' to disembarrass the cursory reader from the notion that these are bonâ fide corrections of the common text....

"Who cares to know what errors are corrected in" (the forthcoming Stratford edition), "that exist in no other, and which have never been introduced into the modern text?"—Specimen, &c., p. xxiv.

The impression one would receive from Mr. Knight's note upon Theobald is, that Shakspeare had his notion of the shoes from "our old poets," while the learned had theirs from ex pede Herculem; but where the analogy lies, wherein the point, or what the application, is not explained. Steevens' original note was superior to this, in so much that he quoted the words of these old poets, thereby giving his readers an opportunity of considering the justness of the deduction. The only set-off to this omission by Mr. Knight is the introduction of "ex pede Herculem," the merit of which is doubtless his own.

But it so happens that the size of the foot of Hercules has no more to do with the real point of the allusion than the length of Prester John's; therefore ex pede Herculem is a most unfortunate illustration,—particularly awkward in a specimen sample, the excellence of which may be questioned.

It is singular enough, and it says a great deal for Theobald's common sense, that he saw what the true intention of the allusion must be, although he did not know how to reconcile it with the existing letter of the text. He wished to preserve the spirit by the sacrifice of the letter, while Mr. Knight preserves the letter but misinterprets the spirit.

Theobald's word "shows," in the sense of externals, is very nearly what Shakspeare meant by shoes, except that shoes implies a great deal more than shows,—it implies the assumption of the character as well as the externals of Hercules.

Out of five quotations from our old poets, given by Steevens in the first edition of his note, there is not one in which the shoes are not provided with feet. But Malone, to his immortal honour, was the first to furnish them with hoofs:

But Shakspeare nowhere alludes to feet! His ass most probably had feet, and so had Juvenal's verse (when he talks of his "satyrâ sumente cothurnum"); but neither Shakspeare nor Juvenal dreamed of any necessary connexion between the feet and the shoes.

Therein lies the difference between Shakspeare and "our old poets;" a difference that ought to be sufficient, of itself, to put down