conjectural
emendation, "recuse" for "secure," but that, unless my memory and Ayscough
are both deceptive, the word "recuse" is nowhere to be found in Shakspeare;
nor, as far as I know, in any dramatist of the age. If it be used by any of
the latter, it is probably only in the strict legal meaning, which is quite
different from that which A. E. B. would attach to it. This is conclusive
with me; for I hold that there is no sounder canon in Shakspearian
criticism than never to introduce by conjecture a word of which the poet
does not himself elsewhere make use, or which is not at least strongly
sanctioned by contemporary employment.

I therefore, as the passage is flat nonsense, return to the well-abused
"corrector's" much modester emendation, "wants" for "means."

And now permit one word in defence of this deceased and untoward personage.

I think much of the unpopularity into which he has fallen with a certain
class of critics, is owing to their not allowing him fair play.

Suppose a MS. placed in our hands, containing, beyond all doubt, what MR.
COLLIER'S corrected second folio is alleged to contain, authoritative
emendations of the text: what should we, _a priori_, expect to find in it?

That text is abominably corrupt beyond a doubt; it contains many impossible
readings, which must be misprints or otherwise erroneous; it contains also
many improbable readings, harsh, strained, mean, inadequate, and the like.

Now it is excessively unlikely that a truly corrected copy, could we find
one, would remove all the impossible readings, and leave all the improbable
ones.

It is still more unlikely that, in correcting the improbable passages, it
would leave those to which Mr. A., or Mr. B., or Mr. C., ay, or all of us
together, have formed an attachment from habit, predilection, or prejudice
of some kind. Such phrases as "the blanket of the dark," "a man that hath
had losses," "unthread the rude eye of rebellion," and many more, have
become consecrated in our eyes by habit; they have assumed, as it were, the
character of additions to our ordinary vocabulary; and yet I think sound
reason itself, and that kind of secondary reason or instinct which long
familiarity with critical pursuits gives us, combine to suggest that,
_occurring in a corrupt text_, they are probably corruptions; and
corruptions in lieu of some very common and even prosaic phrases, such as
the corrector substitutes for them, and such as no conjectural cri