It is true that Johnson gives a definition of "triple," in reference to its application to Antony, viz., "consisting of three conjoined;" but that meaning, however it might be applicable to the triumvirate collectively, is certainly not so to the members individually. To meet Shakspeare's use of the word, the definition must be extended to "consisting of, _or belonging to_, three conjoined:" a sense in which "triplex" was undoubtedly used by the Latins. Ovid would call the triumvirate "viri triplices," and of course each one must be "vir triplex;" but perhaps the clearest instance of the triune application is where he addresses the Fates (in _Ibin._ 76.) as spinning out "triplici pollice" (with triple thumb) the allotted task. Now as only one of the sisters held the thread, there could be but one individual thumb engaged (although with a sort of reflective ownership to all three); and there can be no question that Ovid would apply the same term to the shears of Atropos, or the distaff of Clotho. Here, then, is a _really recondite_ meaning, fairly traced to Shakspeare's own reading; for had he borrowed it from any one else, some trace of it would be found, and Warburton need not have stultified himself by his sapient note--"IMPROPERLY USED FOR THIRD!" But to return to "captious," there is, after all, no such great difference whether it be one's goods, or one's wits, that are taken possession of; or whether the capture be effected by avidity or fraud; both meanings unite in our own word "caption:" and there seems no good reason why "captious" should not derive from "caption," as readily as "cautious" from "caution." It is for the antithesis I contend, as a key to the true sense intended by Shakspeare: the whole play is full of antitheses, uttered especially by Helena;--and certainly, if we recognise the allusion to the Danaïdes (as who will not?), we cannot, without depriving it of half its force and beauty, receive "captious" in the sense of "deceptious." The Danaïdes _were not_ deceived--the essence of their punishment was utter absence of hope; Tantalus _was_ deceived--the essence of _his_ punishment was hope ever recurring. With respect to the suggestion of "capacious" by W.F.S. (p. 229.), he could not have read Mr. Singer's paper with attention, or he would have perceived that he had been anticipated by Farmer, who, by elision, had obviated the metrical objection of J.S.W. (p. 430.). But the meaning of "capacious" is "capable of containing," and, as such, it would be more than antithetical, it would be contradictory, to "intenible." If _capacious_ be consistent with _leaky_, then the "uxor secreti capax" must have been rather an unsafe confidante. A. E. B. Leeds, June 5. 1851. EARTH THROWN UPON THE COFFIN. (Vol. iii., p. 408.)