cannot, I think, be justified on any ground. He tells her something which "makes her blood look out." That is, something which makes her blush rush to the surface to look out upon it! What can be more natural? The proposed alteration is not only unnecessary, but awkward! In p. 499., if the words "unbraided wares" must be altered, I see no reason for the change to "_embroided_" wares. It seems to me that _embraided_ would be the most proper word. What possible reason can there be for converting "force and knowledge," in p. 506., to "sense and knowledge?" If I may be excused a play upon the words, I should say the _sense_ of the passage is not at all improved, and the _force_ is entirely lost. I must protest most decidedly against the correction of the following lines, p. 507.: " . . . Can he speak? hear? Know man from man? dispute his own estate?" Dispute his own estate means, _defend_ his property, dispute with any one who questions his rights. The original passage expresses the sense quite perfectly, while "dispose his own estate" appears to me poor and insipid in comparison. MR. COLLIER'S objection to the speech of Camillo, in p. 514., " . . . it shall be so my care To have you royally appointed, as if The scene you play were mine;" is, that to make the scene appear as if it were Camillo's, could be of no service to the young prince. Now Camillo says nothing about the scene _appearing_ as his. He says he will have the prince royally appointed, as if the scene he played _were_ really his own: that is, as if _he_ were the party interested in it, instead of the prince. {97} The reading of the old corrector-- " . . . . As if The scene you play were true," would be nonsense; because, so far as the prince appearing to be Bohemia's son (which was what he was most anxious about), the scene to be played was _really true_! The last correction I have now to notice is in the soliloquy of Autolycus in p. 522.: where MR. COLLIER proposes to read, "who knows how that may turn _luck_ to my advantage," instead of "may turn _back_ to my advantage." I see no advantage in the change, but the very reverse. "Who knows but my availing myself of the means to do the prince my master a service, may come back to me in the shape of some advancement?" This seems to me to be the author's meaning, and it is legitimately expressed. How frequently it has been said that an evil deed recoils upon the head of the perpetrator! Then why not a good deed _turn back_ to reward the doer? CECIL HARBOTTLE.