P. S.--It is rather singular that A. E. B., who, as I have already shown, has so completely _shelved_ me in his remarks upon "Aristotle's checks," should now complain of the very same thing himself, and say that his "humble auxilia have been coolly appropriated, without the slightest acknowledgment." However, as our opinions coincide upon the passage in question, I am not disposed to pick a quarrel with him. I cannot, however, at all concur in his alteration of the passage in _King Lear_: "Our means secure us," to "Our means _recuse_ us." I will certainly leave him "in the quiet possession of whatever merit is due to this _restoration_," or rather this invention! Can A. E. B. show any other instance in which Shakspeare has used the verb _recuse_; or will he point out any other author who has adopted it in the sense referred to? Johnson calls it a "juridical word:" and I certainly have no recollection of having met with it, except in judicial proceedings. I can neither subscribe to the emendation of A. E. B., nor to that of the old commentator, but infinitely prefer the original words, which appear to me perfectly intelligible. The sense, as it strikes me, is, that however we may desire things which we have not, the _means_ we already possess are sufficient for our security; and even our _defects_ prove serviceable. Blindness, for instance, will make a man more careful of himself; and then the other faculties he enjoys will secure him from harm. _"King Lear," Act IV. Sc. 1._-- "Our means secure us, and our mere defects Prove our commodities." I should not object to your correspondent A. E. B.'s 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?