shard is dung, and that the "shard-born beetle" of 'Macbeth,' is the beetle born of dung. Sceam is the AngloSaxon for dung, and we know of no authority for Tolier's definition. Gower, in his Confessio Amantis,' has used scherdes in the same sense as Shakspere : "A dragon Whose scherdes shinen as the sunne." TOMBOY. Act I., Sc. 7. "With tomboys, hir'd with that self-exhibition." Tomboy is thus defined by Verstegan: "Tumbe, to dance. Tumbed, danced. Hereof we yet call a wench that skippeth or leapeth like a boy, a tomboy." TOUCH. Act I., Sc. 2. "A touch more rare. Touch used for feeling; a higher feeling. UNTWINE. Act IV., Sc. 2. "And let the stinking elder, grief, untwine." Untwine it has been proposed to exchange for entwine, because untwine with is ungrammatical. But the commentators here appear to have mistaken the meaning. The root of the elder is short-lived and perishes, while that of the vine continues to flourish and increase. Let the stinking elder, grief, untwine his root which is perishing, with (in company with) the vine which is increasing. "Behoves me keep at utterance." Utterance is from the French outrance. The combat à outrance was to fight to the death, to give no quarter. VANTAGE. Act I., Sc. 4. "With his next vantage." Vantage, opportunity; he will take advantage of the next opportunity. VERBAL. Act II., Sc. 3. "By being so verbal." a lady's Verbal is here speaking plainly, thus forgetting WRYING. Act V., Sc. 1. "For wrying but a little." but Wrying. In Sydney's 'Arcadia,' we find a passage which is at once an example, and an explanation of this unusual use of the word wry as a verb-"That from the right line of virtue are wryed to these crooked shifts." HISTORICAL PLAYS. KING JOHN. DR. JOHNSON, in his preface to Shakspere, speaking of the division, by the players, of our author's works into comedies, histories, and tragedies, thus defines what, he says, was the notion of a dramatic history in those times: "History was a series of actions, with no other than chronological succession, independent on each other, and without any tendency to introduce and regulate the conclusion." Again, speaking of the unities of the critics, he says of Shakspere-"His histories, being neither tragedies nor comedies, are not subject to any of their laws; nothing more is necessary to all the praise which they expect, than that the changes of action be so prepared as to be understood, that the incidents be various and affecting, and the characters consistent, natural, and distinct. No other unity is intended, and, therefore, none is to be sought. In his other works he has well enough preserved the unity of action." Taking these observations together, as a general definition of the character of Shakspere's histories, we are constrained to say that no opinion can be farther removed from the truth. So far from the "unity of action" not being regarded in Shakspere's histories, and being subservient to the "chronological succession," it rides over that succession whenever the demands of the scene require "a unity of a higher order, which connects the events by reference to the workers, gives a reason for them in the motives, and presents men in their causative character." The great connecting link that binds together all the series of actions in the 'King John' of Shakspere, is the fate of Arthur. From the first to the last scene, the hard struggles and the cruel end of the young Duke of Brittany either lead to the action, or form a portion of it, or are the direct causes of an ulterior consequence. The moving cause of the main action in the play of 'King Coleridge's Literary Remains. * |