emendations were by Auratus and Portus, two learned French scholars; and that Mr. Mitford's volume contained several other emendations without the signatures (A) and (P), which he, for distinction's sake, marked (Q). Now my copy also possessed these readings marked (Q). The bishop further observed, that the writer of the MSS. notes was a cotemporary of Casaubon's from a remark at p. 14. of the volume. The learned bishop's description of the volume will be found in the Museum Criticum, vol. ii. p. 488. I at first imagined I had met with this identical volume; but a closer examination proved I was mistaken, as my copy, besides all those carefully noted by Dr. Blomfield, contained many other emendations, but had not the note at p. 14. of the Prometheus. Whoever was the copier or writer of the marginal MSS. in my volume, was evidently a Frenchman, as some of the notes are in French. The handwriting is very ancient and contracted, and has the appearance of being of the early portion of the seventeenth century. The most interesting part, however, of the story still remains. Dr. Thomas Morell edited the Prometheus, 4to., 1773. The title is as follows: Æschyli P. V. cum Stanl. Versione et Scholiis, α, β, (et γ ineditis), &c. Now these Scholia γ, which he professes to give for the first time, I found to be those in the very ancient hand in the margin of my volume. He frequently also gives the various marginal readings, and styles them "Marg. MS." Moreover he occasionally adopts these notes without any acknowledgment, especially where they throw any light on the text. The volume then is of great curiosity and value. From a curious note at the end of the Prometheus, Morell takes nine iambic lines, to which is affixed "Ad Calcem Dramatis MS. Regii." From this it would seem the Scholia were taken from a MS. in the Royal Library at Paris.

We may observe then as a remarkable circumstance, that while Bishop Blomfield was describing the copy belonging to Mr. Mitford, a similar copy, with more notes, and of equal antiquity as to the MSS. emendations, was in existence, and had once been in the possession of, and of much assistance to the great Dr. Morell. Where Morell got this volume, and how he should not have acknowledged the aid he derived from it, is a mystery. As I mentioned before, the handwriting is far prior to Morell's day. The volume is rendered still more interesting by its having many of Stanley's emendations, about which such a controversy arose from the observations made by Blomfield in his preface to the Agamemnon. And I am almost induced to think it might originally have belonged to Stanley, who made a similar use of it to what Morell did. Many of the emendations are still inedited. This valuable volume, therefore, is of great interest, (1) from the vast number of MSS. readings, and (2) from its having been formerly in the possession of Dr. Morell, and the circumstances above mentioned. It is a very large and clean copy of the now scarce edition of H. Stephens; and your bibliographical readers will be astonished to hear I purchased it for one shilling! I may mention I showed it to the Bishop of London and Dr. Wordsworth, Canon of Westminster, who were both interested with it. The latter showed me in return several volumes of MSS. collections for a new edition of Æschylus, made by his lamented brother the late Mr. John Wordsworth, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, perhaps the profoundest Greek scholar next to Porson the University of Cambridge ever possessed, and who so ably reviewed Professor Scholefield's Æschylus in the Philological Museum. The classical world can never sufficiently regret that death prevented us from receiving at his hands a first-rate edition of this noble poet, as he had been at much pains in travelling all over the Continent, and examining all the MSS. extant; and from his known partiality to the author, and

vast learning, would doubtless have done ample justice to his task.

Richard Hooper.

St. Stephen's, Westminster.

ON A PASSAGE IN THE "MERCHANT OF VENICE," ACT III. SC. 2.

The passage in which I am about to propose some verbal corrections has already been in part examined by your correspondent A. E. B. in p. 483. of this volume; but the points, except one, to which I advert, have not been touched by that gentleman. The first folio reads thus:

The word guiled in the first line is printed guilded in the second folio, the form in which gilded appears often in the old copies. I have no doubt that this is the true reading, and it would obviate the difficulty of supposing that Shakspeare wrote guiled for guiling.

In Henry Peacham's Minerva Britanna, 1612, p. 207., of deceitful "court favour" it is said:

Notwithstanding your correspondent's ingenious argument to show that beautie in the third line may be the true reading, I cannot but think that it is a mistake of the compositor caught from beauteous in the preceding line; and that gypsie was the word used by the poet, who thus designates Cleopatra. The words in their old form might well be confused. For "thou pale and common drudge," in the seventh line, I unhesitatingly read "thou stale and common drudge;" and, by so doing, avoid the repetition of the same epithet to silver and lead. It is evident that the epithet applied to silver should be a depreciating one; while paleness is said to move more than eloquence. The following passage in King Henry IV., Part I. Act III. Sc. 2. confirms this reading:

To obviate the repetition, Warburton altered paleness to plainness, but paleness was the appropriate epithet for lead. Thus, Baret has, "Palenesse or wannesse like lead. Ternissure."

And in Romeo and Juliet, Act II. Sc. 5., we have:

With these simple and, most of them, obvious corrections, I submit the passage to the impartial consideration of those who with me think that our immortal poet, so consummate a master of English, has been here, as elsewhere, rendered obscure, if not absurd, by the blunders of the printer. It will then run thus: