_The Obsolete Word "Prenzie."_--I agree with your correspondent LEGES, that the several emendations which have been suggested of the word "prenzie," do not "answer all the necessary conditions." LEGES says, "it is universally agreed that the word is a misprint."[5] Now misprinting may be traced to wrong letters being dropped in the boxes into which compositors put the types, and which generally are found to be neighbours (this is hardly intelligible but to the initiated). However, _they_ will at once see that a more unfortunate illustration could hardly have been suggested. An error, made by the printer, often passes "the reader" or corrector, because it is something, in appearance and sound, like what should have been used. But in this word there is no assimilation of either to any one of the words conjectured to have been meant. Moreover, such a word would never have been _twice_ used erroneously in the same piece. May it not rather have been an adaptation from the Norman _prisé_, or the Latin _prenso_, signifying _assumed_, _seized_, &c.? The _sound_ comes much nearer, the _sense_ would do. I hardly like to venture a suggestion where so many eminent commentators entertain other views; but it seems to me that it is a main excellence of your periodical to encourage such suggestions; and if mine be not too wild, your insertion of it will oblige B. B. [Footnote 5: Old as well as modern typographers need have broad backs. Bale, in his Preface to the _Image of both Churches_, says, "But ij cruel enemies have my just labours had * * * The _printers_ are the first whose heady hast, negligence, and couetousnesse commonly corrupteth all bokes * * * though they had in their handes ij learned correctours w'h take all paynes possyble to preserue them."] P.S. May I end this note by adopting a Query many years since put forth by a highly valued and, alas! deceased friend and coadjutor in antiquarian pursuits,--"What is the date of that edition of the Bible which reads (Psalm cxix. 161.): _Printers_ have persecuted me without a cause?" _On a Passage in "Measure for Measure"_ (Vol. iii., p. 401.).--One of the very few admissible conjectural emendations on Shakspeare made by the ingenious and gifted poet and critic Tieck, is that which Mr. Knight adopted, and I cannot think your correspondent LEGES happy in proposing to substitute "pensive." There can be no doubt that "guards" in the passage in question signifies _facings_, _trimmings_, _ornaments_, and that it is used metaphorically for _dress_, _habit_, _appearance_, and not for _countenance_, _demeanour_. The context clearly shows this: "_Claud._ The _precise_ Angelo? "_Isab._ O, 'tis the cunning _livery_ of hell, The damned'st body _to invest and cover_ In _prècise guards_." Isabella had before characterised Angelo-- "This _outward-sainted_ deputy is yet a devil:"