e.

* * * * *

A curious instance of ex-officio arms added to the paternal coat, occurs on
the monument of Dr. Samuel Blythe, at the east end of St. Edward's Church,
Cambridge. He was Master of Clare Hall, and in this example his paternal
arms--Argent, a chevron gules, between three lions rampant sable--occupy
the lower part of the shield, being divided at the fess point by something
like an inverted chevron, from the arms of Clare Hall, which thus occupy
the upper half of the shield. The date is 1713. Is this way of dividing the
arms a blunder of the painter's, or can any of your readers point out a
similar instance?

NORRIS DECK.

* * * * *

SHAKSPEARE CORRESPONDENCE.

_Difficulty of avoiding Coincident Suggestions on the Text of
Shakspeare._--A correspondent in Vol. viii., p. 193., is somewhat
unnecessarily severe on MR. COLLIER and MR. SINGER, for having overlooked
some suggestions in Jackson's work: the enormous number of useless
conjectures in that publication rendering it so tedious and unprofitable to
consider them attentively, the student is apt to think his time better
engaged in investigating other sources of information. I think, therefore,
little of MR. COLLIER overlooking the few coincident suggestions in
Jackson, which are smaller in number than I had anticipated; the real cause
for wonder consisting in the ignoring so many conjectures that have been
treated of years ago, often at great length, by some of the {266} most
distinguished critics this country has produced. Generally speaking,
however, there is in these matters such a tendency for reproduction, I
should for one hesitate to accuse any critic of intentional unfairness,
merely because he puts forth conjectures as new, when they have been
previously published; and I have found so many of my own attempts at
emendation, thought to be original, in other sources, that I now hesitate
at introducing any as novel. These attempts, like most others, have only
resulted occasionally in one that will bear the test of examination after
it has been placed aside, and carefully considered when the impression of
novelty has worn off. I think we may safely appeal to all critics who
occupy themselves much with conjectural criticism, and ask them if TIME
does not frequently impair the complacency with which they regard their
efforts on their first production.

Vol. viii., p. 216., contains more inst