The manuscript reads "the salt-water fish is an old coat," which may serve to confine the conjectures of the commentators on this very difficult passage within narrower bounds. At all events, this reading appears to overthrow the conjecture of "A Lover of Heraldry," given in Knight's Library Shakespeare, vol. iii. p. 41. / p.10 / In Slender's speech, the manuscript reads uncle instead of coz, an obviously correct emendation, and also made in several other places in the manuscript. A little further onwards the manuscript reads "1700 li," instead of "seven hundred pounds," in three places.

     The manuscript reads "if it were not known in council," which appears to be a better reading, and more congenial to sense.

     In Nym's speech, the manuscript reads "that is my humour," and the next, "He can tell you, uncle," which is certainly preferable to the commonly received reading.

/ p.11 /

     The manuscript reads "that I will," and thus corrects a very evident error that has passed through all the editions. In a few lines, previously, the manuscript reads, "it is not a good you tarry here," instead of "it is not good you tarry here."

     The second folio reads "sue more," but the manuscript has "shuh! more" which is much more likely to be right. And here I pause a moment to make one observation on Mr. Knight's note on / p.12 / the common word precisian, occurring just before, and ask why Johnson's definition is not sufficient for its explanation. If any doubt be entertained on this point, let the reader compare the fifth jest in "Jests to Make you Merrie," 4to. Lond. 1607, which unfortunately is not of a character to be quoted.

     The manuscript inserts the words, "Now, Mistress Quickly," at the commencement of the second speech; which appears to be an evident improvement.

     The manuscript reads "that you were good / p.13 / soldiers and stout fellows," and other variations in the same speech, such as "my" for "mine," &c. In the next line, the manuscript reads, "Didst thou not share."

     The manuscript reads "blunderbust oaths," which is a very curious variation, and well worthy of notice. In the same speech, the manuscript reads "term," instead of "terms," agreeing in this with the second folio.

     The manuscript reads, "up with you flags," which seems much more intelligible. If Mr. Knight had referred to Cole, he would not have given so imperfect a definition of fights, which the latter author defines to be, "coverts, any / p.14 / places where men may stand unseen and use their arms in a ship." See his English Dictionary, 8vo. Lond. 1676.

     The manuscript reads, "if you will help me to bear it."

     The conduct of this is entirely changed in the manuscript, which reads as follows:--

   "Ford. There is a gentleman in this town, his name is Ford, whose wife I have long loved.
   Fal. Well, sir.
   Ford. And, I protest to you, bestowed much on her."

/ p.15 /

     The manuscript reads, "the key to the cuckoldy rogue's coffer."

     These are the last words of this scene, and the manuscript reads "wittol," instead of the second "cuckold," and I have little doubt the manuscript is right; for it agrees with the same exclamation in the former part of the speech.

     The manuscript here inserts a very necessary word, in reading "Master Justice Guest," which is peculiar to this copy.

     It may be remarked of this manuscript that all Evans's speeches are very carefully spelt to indicate his peculiar phraseology, much more so than / p.16 / the printed editions; and this is one evidence that it was a playhouse copy. Thus, in the present speech, the manuscript reads,-- "Plesse my soul: how full of chollers I am, and trempling of mind: I shall pe glat if he hafe deceivet me: how melanchollies I am? I will knog his vrinalls apout his knaves costart, when I hafe goot opportunities for the 'orke: Plesse my soul: (sings)

     The manuscript reads, "the man that should fight with him."

/ p.17 /

     The manuscript reads "Gallia and Wallia," which seems to confirms [lit.] Hanmer's very sensible emendation.

     The manuscript reads "and well laid," which appears to be a most sensible emendation.

     After the word "fortunes," the manuscript adds "with my money."

     This passage has puzzled the commentators, and Mr. Knight is not of opinion that a perfect sense can be made of the passage as it stands. / p.18 / The reading of the manuscript renders the matter quite clear, and partially confirms Pope's conjecture. It is, "Nature's thy friend." This single emendation is sufficient to stamp a value on the manuscript. Throughout this scene are a variety of alterations. At p.79, the manuscript reads, "I am come before to tell you," which is an improvement. The printed editions omit the word "am." The manuscript also reads, "Why, your husband's a coming hither, woman," the two words in italics being omitted in the printed copies. It would be impossible to notice all variations of this kind, without reprinting the play. These instances are merely given as examples taken at random to show that the manuscript is an independent text.

     The manuscript here affords a more important emendation, reading "what was in the basket." It is very clear that Ford could not have asked / p.19 / who was in the basket, because had it entered his head that any one was there, he would of course have discovered the trick. That the manuscript is correct is clear from a subsequent passage, where Falstaff tells Master Broome, that the jealous knave "asked them once or twice what they had in their basket." The manuscript also reads "a good turn," instead of "a benefit."

     The manuscript reads, "but--I am affeard, la!" It also adds the words, "and family frailties," after "faults," in Anne's next speech; and instead of "a hundred and fifty pounds jointure," we have "a hundred and fifty pounds a year jointure."

     The first folio reads gin, but the manuscript has gang, which is clearly the right word. A little further on, the manuscript reads, "Here's no man here," which last word is omitted in the printed editions, although necessary.

     The manuscript reads "of that fat woman" / p.21 / which is more likely to be correct than the commonly received reading.

     The manuscript reads, "let's away; come, son Slender, follow me."

     With this specimen I conclude, and leave to others the question how far these emendations may be safely admitted into an edition of Shakespeare. The question, perhaps, is one rather of authority than judgment; and it may certainly be a doubt whether the manuscript is of a higher authority, as far as regards the text, than the corrections of the first folio which Mr. Collier discovered in a copy belonging to Lord Francis Egerton. But early corrections, like the corrections in the folio of 1632, must be of more authority than those made by Rowe, Pope, and subsequent editors; and an early manuscript copy of any one / p.22 / of Shakespeare's plays, even though written after the poet's death, cannot but be considered a great curiosity. It would be impossible to say whether the manuscript now under consideration was taken from a contemporary copy or not. It is, however, certain that no transcript of an early edition, though carefully corrected, could possibly contain the numerous and extensive variations which are found in this manuscript of the "Merry Wives of Windsor."
     And it is this last consideration which inclines me to think that it must have been copied for some private exhibition, so common, according to Kirkman, during the Commonwealth. If so, the corrections made in it were probably by some one who had seen this play acted, and had remembered the players' versions of those passages he has altered. And this, upon the whole, appears to be the most probable mode of accounting for the peculiar readings with which it abounds.
     Mr. Collier attaches considerable value to a few extracts from Shakespeare's plays which he found in an early manuscript common-place book, / p.23 / although he confesses that it is doubtful whether the writer employed printed copies, resorted to manuscript authorities, or only recorded striking passages which he heard at the theatres. Even with this doubt, so honestly expressed, Mr. Collier tells us that "these brief extracts, never exceeding five lines, now and then throw light upon difficult and doubtful expressions." I quote this, not in the expectation of claiming for the manuscript any additional value, but for the purpose of showing how very little early written authority for the text of Shakespeare has yet been disovered, and the extreme importance given by the critics to evidence of this nature. Some of us, perhpas, are sufficiently sanguine to believe that one day or other will bring to light a copy of "Love's Labours Won," or a bundle of the original prompt copies of Shakespeare's plays, as they were exhibited within his "wooden O;" but those who do not anticipate such wonders, whose "ultima Thule" of expectation is the sight of the first edition of "Titus Andronicus," and who recollect how com- / p.24 / paratively few and unimportant the recent discoveries have been, will be more inclined to receive the present addition to Shakespearian criticism in a favourable light.