Notes and Queries, Number 184, May 7, 1853. Various

      Bid sorrow wag—cry hem! when he should groan."

      In p. 73. we find—

      substituted for "foul tainted flesh;" and we are told that the critics have been all wrong, who supposed that Shakspeare intended any "metaphor from the kitchen!" If so, what meaning can be attached to the line—

      If that is not a metaphor from the kitchen, I know not what could be? I still believe that "foul tainted flesh" is the correct reading. The expression "soul-tainted flesh" is not intelligible. It should rather be "soul-tainting flesh." The soul may be tainted by the flesh: but how the flesh can be soul-tainted, I cannot understand.

      Turning further back, to p. 69., we find it asserted, quite dogmatically, that the word "truths" of the folios ought to be "proofs;" but no reason whatever is offered for the change. I cannot help thinking that "seeming truths" is much the most poetical expression, while in "seeming proofs" there is something like redundancy,—to say nothing of the phrase being infinitely more common-place!

      In the play of the Tempest, p. 4., the beautiful passage—

      is degraded into "he being thus loaded," &c. Can there be a moment's doubt that "lorded" was the word used by Shakspeare? It is completely in his style, which was on all occasions to coin verbs out of substantives, if he could. "He being thus lorded," i. e. ennobled "with what my revenue yielded," is surely a far superior expression to "being thus loaded,"—as if the poet were speaking of a costermonger's donkey!

      Again, in p. 10.:

      or, this ghastly appearance? Who will venture to say, that the substitution of "thus ghastly looking" is not decidedly a change for the worse?

      In the Merchant of Venice, p. 118.:

      is altered to "leave itself unfinished!" I confess I cannot see the slightest warrant for this change. The words—

      distinctly show that the author was alluding to the eye only, and not to the portrait and how could the eye (already made) describe itself as unfinished? Surely the sense is unfurnished, that is, unfurnished with its companion, or probably with the other accessories required to complete the portrait.

      P. 119. has the line—

      transmogrified into—

      Now, why "this lame and impotent conclusion?" What can be a more common expression than the "roof of the mouth?" and it is just the part which is most affected by a sensation of dryness and pricking, after any excitement in speaking, whereas the tongue is not the member that suffers!

      In As You Like It, p. 127., in the line—

      the last two words are made "fastest haste," which, to say the least, are tautology, and are like talking, of the "highest height", or the the "deepest depth!" Surely, the original form of words, "Dispatch you with your safest haste