It would be, I own, an audacious and unjustifiable change of the text; but yet, as a mere conjecture, I venture to suggest 'bastards,' for ''bated.' As it stands, in spite of Warburton's note I can make little or nothing of it. Why should the king except the then most illustrious states, which, as being republics, were the more truly inheritors of the Roman grandeur?--With my conjecture, the sense would be;--'let higher, or the more northern part of Italy--(unless 'higher' be a corruption for 'hir'd,'--the metre seeming to demand a monosyllable) (those bastards that inherit the infamy only of their fathers) see, &c.' The following 'woo' and 'wed' are so far confirmative as they indicate Shakspeare's manner of connexion by unmarked influences of association from some preceding metaphor. This it is which makes his style so peculiarly vital and organic. Likewise 'those girls of Italy' strengthen the guess. The absurdity of Warburton's gloss, which represents the king calling Italy superior, and then excepting the only part the lords were going to visit, must strike every one. Ib. sc. 3. 'Laf'. They say, miracles are past; and we have our philosophical persons to make modern and familiar, things supernatural and _causeless_. Shakspeare, inspired, as it might seem, with all knowledge, here uses the word 'causeless' in its strict philosophical sense;--cause being truly predicable only of 'phenomena', that is, things natural, and not of 'noumena', or things supernatural. Act iii. sc. 5. 'Dia'. The Count Rousillon:--know you such a one? 'Hel'. But by the ear that hears most nobly of him; His face I know not. Shall we say here, that Shakspeare has unnecessarily made his loveliest character utter a lie?--Or shall we dare think that, where to deceive was necessary, he thought a pretended verbal verity a double crime, equally with the other a lie to the hearer, and at the same time an attempt to lie to one's own conscience? MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR. Act I. sc. 1. 'Shal'. The luce is the fresh fish, the salt fish is an old coat. I cannot understand this. Perhaps there is a corruption both of words and speakers. Shallow no sooner corrects one mistake of Sir Hugh's, namely, 'louse' for 'luce,' a pike, but the honest Welchman falls into another, namely, 'cod' ('baccalà') 'Cambrice' 'cot' for coat. 'Shal'. The luce is the fresh fish-- 'Evans'. The salt fish is an old cot. 'Luce is a fresh fish, and not a louse;' says Shallow. 'Aye, aye,' quoth Sir Hugh; 'the _fresh_ fish is the luce; it is an old cod that is the salt fish.' At all events, as the text stands, there is no sense at all in the words. 'Ib.' sc. 3. 'Fal'. Now, the report goes, she has all the rule of her husband's purse; she hath a legion of angels. 'Pist'. As many devils entertain; and 'To her, boy', say I. Perhaps it is-- As many devils enter (or enter'd) swine; and _to her, boy_, say I:--