I have read with attention the argument of your correspondent LEGES on the passage in _Measure for Measure_, in which the word "prenzie" occurs; and to much that he advances I should, like the modest orator who followed Mr. Burke, be contented to say "ditto." Nevertheless, as I cannot agree with him altogether, I beg permission to make a few remarks upon the question. The extent of my agreement with your correspondent will be shown in stating, that I think neither "priestly," "princely," nor "precise" to be the true word. We disagree, however, in the measure of our dislike; for of the three suggested corrections, "princely" is, to my mind, by far the best, and "precise," beyond all measure, the worst. Indeed, but that Mr. Knight has adopted the latter term, as well as Tieck, I should have regarded it as an instance of the difficulty in the way of the best qualified Germans of understanding the niceties of English meaning, or of feeling how far license might be tolerated in English versification. In adopting this term Mr. Knight appears to have forgotten that it has a special application as the Duke (Act I. Sc. 4.) uses it. Taken in connexion with the expressions "stands at a guard" and "scarce confesses," _cautiously exact_ would appear to express the sense in a passage the whole spirit of which shows a scarcely disguised suspicion. The Duke, evidently, would not have been surprised, as Claudio was; and the expression appropriate to a close observer like the one, is a most unlikely epithet to have been chosen by the other. More fatal, however, is the destruction of the measure. Both instances go beyond all bounds of license. And though we may pass over the error in a critic so eminent even as Tieck, we need feel no compunction at exposing "earless on high" an Englishman who has pilloried so often and so mercilessly others for the same offence. While, however, LEGES has shown good cause against the adoption of either of the above epithets, it does not appear to me that he has succeeded in establishing a case in favour of the word "pensive," which he proposes instead. In the first place, the passages your correspondent quotes, show Angelo to be "strict," "firm," "precise," to be "a man whose blood is very snow-broth," &c., but certainly not "pensive" in the common acceptation of the word. Secondly, he fails to show that, if Shakspeare meant by "pensive" anything more than _thoughtful_ in the passages he cites, he meant anything so strong as _religiously melancholy_, which would be the sense required to be of any service to him as an epithet to the word "guards."