He proceeds to show that _rack_ "is merely the past tense, and therefore past participle, [reac] or [rec], of the Anglo-Saxon verb Recan, _exhalare_, to _reek_;" and although the advocates of its being a particular description of light cloud refer to him as an authority for their reading, he treats it throughout generally as "a vapour, a steam, or an exhalation." But Horne Tooke, in his zeal as an etymologist, forgot altogether to attend to the construction of the passage. What is it that shall "leave not a rack behind?" A rack of what? Not of the baseless fabric of this vision, like which the "cloud-capp'd towers shall dissolve,"--not of this insubstantial pageant, like which they shall have faded,--but of "the cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, the solemn temples, the great globe itself." There is in fact a double comparison; but the construction and the meaning are perfectly clear, and no word will suit the passage but one that shall express a result common {219} to the different objects enumerated. A cloud may be a fit object for comparison, but it is utterly inconsequential; while the sense required can only be expressed by a general term, such as _remains_, a _vestige_, or a _trace_. I beg now to transcribe a note Of Mr. Collier's on this passage:-- "'Rack' is vapour, from _reck_, as Horne Tooke showed; and the light clouds on the face of heaven are the 'rack,' or vapour from the earth. The word 'rack' was often used in this way."--Coll. _Shaksp._, vol. i. p. 70. Mr. Knight appears to incline to the same view; and regarding these as the two latest authorities, and finding in neither of them any reference to the question of construction, I naturally concluded that the point had been overlooked by the commentators. On reference, however, I found to my surprise, that Malone, for the very same reasons, had come to the same conclusion. Had Malone's argument been briefly stated by the "two latest and best editors," I should, of course, have had no occasion to trouble you with this note: and this instance, it appears to me, furnishes additional reasons for enforcing the principle for which I am contending; the neglect of it affecting, in however slight a degree, the sense or correctness of so important and frequently quoted a passage. For my own part, I should have thought that the commonest faith in Shakspeare would have protected any editor, whose avowed object it was to restore the text, from preferring in this instance, to the plain common sense of Malone, the more showy authority of Horne Tooke. In my last paper I wrote,--"So far as quantity is concerned, to eat a crocodile would be _no_ more than to eat an ox." You have omitted the negative. SAMUEL HICKSON. * * * * * ANCIENT INEDITED POEMS, NO. III.