The terminal adjuncts _zie_, _sie_, _some_, generally imply some playful diminutive variation of the original word, certainly they never add force or gravity to it: _prim_, in itself, is a diminutive of _primitive_, and applies more to external appearance than to internal character. I do not think, therefore that even _prim_ would be a word sufficiently dignified for the situation and context; much less is its diminutive _primsie_. It seems to me that the character of Angelo is generally mistaken; he is too often looked upon as a mere hypocrite, whereas Shakspeare depicts him, before his fall, as a rigid but _sincere_ ascetic. This view of his character accounts for his final condemnation of Claudio: he has no mercy for _the crime_, even while committing it himself; and he was just the man who, had he escaped detection, would probably have passed the remainder of his life in the exercise of self-inflicted penance. Viewing Angelo, therefore, as a man proverbial for rigidly virtuous conduct; who stood "at a guard with envy;" who challenged scrutiny; and who was above the tongue of slander; I do not think that _primsie_ can be looked upon as an appropriate designation in the mouth of Claudio. He would use some word in the greatest possible contrast to the infamous conduct Isabella was imputing to Angelo: _primsie_ would be weak and almost unmeaning, and, as such, I will not receive it as Shakespeare's, so long as the choice of a better remains. Does not Shakspeare, by his frequent repetition of _precise_, in this play, seem purposely to stamp it with that peculiar signification necessary to his meaning, that is, rigidly virtuous? Another example of it, not, I believe, before noticed, is where Elbow describes his "two notorious benefactors" as "precise villains," "void of all profanation that good Christians ought to have." The humour of this is in the contrast afforded by Elbow's association of incongruous and inconsistent terms, causing Escalus to exclaim, "Do you hear how he misplaces?" _Precise_ therefore in this place also requires a meaning as opposite as possible to villany, something _more_ than formal, in order that the humour may be fully appreciated. With respect to Halliwell's quotation from Fletcher's poems, it certainly confers upon _prin_ a very different meaning from any that _prim_ is capable of receiving: the context requires _prin_ to have some signification akin to _fleshless_; like "bodyes at the resurrection, just rarifying into ayre." _Prin_, in this sense, would seem to have some relation to _pine_, since _pin_ and _prin_ were synonymous. A. E. B. Leeds, July, 1851 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (Vol. iii, pp. 166, 230, 412.)