"That, am I, have, and will be,
Though all the world should crack their duty to you,
and throw it from their soul," &c.
Still less can it be permitted to change "crack their duty" into "lack their duty." Setting aside all consideration of the comparative force of the two words, and the circumstance that crack is frequently used by Shakspeare in the sense of sever by violence—the adoption of lack would be to attribute to Shakspeare an absolute blunder, for how could "all the world" throw from their soul that which they lacked?
With reference to another alteration ("capable" into "palpable," in As You Like It, Act III. Sc. 5.), notwithstanding that it seems so obvious, and has been declared so self-evident, "as to be lauded needs but to be seen," I, for one, enter my protest against it, being of opinion that the conservation of capable is absolutely essential to the context.
Capable may be, and has been, defended upon various grounds; but there is one consideration which, with me, is all-sufficient, viz., it is necessary for the explanation and defence of the accompanying word "cicatrice." Capable is concave, and has reference to the lipped shape of the impression, and cicatrice is a lipped scar; therefore one word supports and explains the other. And it is not a little singular that cicatrice should, in its turn, have been condemned as an improper expression by the very critic (Dr. Johnson) who, without perceiving this very cogent reason for so doing, nevertheless explains "capable impressure" as a hollow mark.
A. E. B.
Leeds.