First, as to this latter point. Some years ago a distinguished scholar, when engaged in translating Goethe's _Faust_, came to a passage involved in considerable obscurity, and which he found was interpreted very differently by different admirers of the poem. Unable, under these circumstances, to procure any satisfactory solution of the poet's meaning, the translator applied to Goethe himself, and received from him the candid reply which we think it far from improbable that Shakspeare himself might give with reference to many passages in his own writings,--"That {263} he was very sorry he could not assist him, but he really did not know exactly what he meant when he wrote it." We doubt not some of our contributors could supply us with many similar avowals. This opinion will no doubt offend many of those blind worshippers of Shakspeare, who will not believe that he could have written a passage which is not perfect, and who, consequently, will not be satisfied with any note, emendation, or restoration which does not make the passage into which it is introduced "one entire and perfect chrysolite." But this is unreasonable. We have direct evidence of the imperfect character of much that Shakspeare wrote. When told that Shakspeare had never blotted a line, Ben Jonson--no mean critic, and no unfriendly one--wished he had "blotted a thousand." Would rare Ben have uttered such a wish ignorantly and without cause? We believe the existence of such defects in the writings of Shakspeare, as they were left by him. It follows, therefore, that in our opinion Shakspeare is under great obligations to the undeservedly-abused commentators.[3] It would be strange indeed, when we consider how many men of genius and learning have busied themselves to illustrate his writings, if none of them should have caught any inspiration from his genius. We believe they have done so. We believe Theobald's "babbled o' green fields" to be one of many instances in which, with reference to some one particular passage, the scholiast has proved himself worthy of and excelling his author. Yes, Shakspeare, the greatest of all uninspired writers, was but mortal; and his worshippers would sometimes do well bear in mind that their golden image had but feet of clay. [Footnote 1: We had not seen this very able article until our attention was called to it by this letter. We regret that the author of it was not aware of what had been written in "N. & Q." on many of the points discussed by him. Such knowledge might have modified some of his views.] [Footnote 2: On this point we would call especial attention to MR. HALLIWELL'S communication on the _Difficulty of avoiding Coincident Suggestions on the Text of Shakspeare_, which will be found in our present Number.]