I think A. E. B. has not understood MR. HICKSON'S argument in reference to this word. Perhaps the latter may not have expressed himself very clearly; and not having by me his original paper on the subject, I cannot cite his exact words; but his argument I take to be to this effect:--In construction of the passage there is a double comparison, which, though perfectly clear to the intelligent reader, causes some confusion when a doubt is first raised as to the meaning of the word, and which can be cleared up only by a thorough analysis. "The cloud-capp'd towers," &c., are first compared with "the baseless fabric of this vision," _like which_ they "shall dissolve," and afterwards with "this insubstantial pageant," _like which_ (_having "faded"_) they shall "leave not a rack behind." A given object can be said to "leave behind" only that which was originally of its elements, and for this reason only a general term such as _wreck_ or _vestige_ will accord with the construction of the passage. I am sorry to find that any one should misquote Shakspeare for the purpose of obtaining a temporary triumph: probably, however, in the instance I am about to cite, A. E. B. has really fallen into the common error of regarding two similes as one. He says, giving the substance of Shakspeare's passage, "the globe itself shall dissolve, and, like this vision, leave not a wreck behind." What Shakspeare in substance _does_ say is, "The globe itself, _like this vision_, shall dissolve, and, _like this faded pageant, shall_ leave not a rack behind." A. E. B.'s question, therefore, "in what was the resemblance to the vision to consist, if not in melting, like it, into thin air?" is thus answered: The resemblance _does_ consist in _dissolving_, or "melting" away. My object in making these remarks is not to express an opinion on one side or the other, but to draw the attention of your readers to the real question at issue. I therefore say nothing as to whether Shakspeare may or may not have had a prevision of the nebular theory; though I cannot see that this would be in the least affected by our decision as to the meaning of this word, since the _wrack_ or _wreck_ of the world might well be represented by the "vapour" for which A. E. B. contends. As, however, this gentleman says such is its meaning "beyond all doubt," (a rather dogmatic way of settling the question, by the way, seeing that a doubt had been thrown upon it in the very paper he has engaged himself to answer,) I should like to be informed if there is any authority for the use of the word in Shakspeare, or his cotemporaries, as _mere_ "haze" or "vapour." I have generally understood it to mean a _particular_ description of cloud, or, as some say, more properly, the course of the clouds in motion.