Where we must supply been after has. But in the passage I attempted, and I think successfully, to set right, admitting that custom would allow of the ellipsis of the participle been, after the auxiliary have, to what can "am, have, and will be" possibly refer?
" · · · · · I do professe
That for your highness' good, I euer labour'd
More then mine owne, that am, haue, and will be."
What? Add true at the end of the line, and it mars the verse, but make the probable correction of true for haue, and you get excellent sense without any ellipsis. I am as averse to interpolation or alteration of the text, when sense can by any rational supposition be made of it, as my opponent, or any true lover of the poet and the integrity of his language, can possibly be; but I see nothing rational in refusing to correct an almost self-evident misprint, which would redeem a fine passage that otherwise must always remain a stumbling-block to the most intelligent reader. We have all I trust but one object, i. e. to free the text of our great poet from obvious errors occasioned by extremely incorrect printing in the folios, and at the same time to strictly watch over all attempts at its corruption by unnecessary meddling. This, and not the displaying of our own ingenuity in conjectures, ought to be our almost sacred duty; at least, I feel conscious that it is mine.
S. W. Singer.
"That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain."
Hamlet.
The notable quotation of this line by the Earl of Derby, in the Lords, on Monday evening, April 25, has once more reminded me of my unanswered Query respecting it, Vol. vi., p. 270.
On the 26th February (Vol. vii., p. 217.) Mr. Collier was good enough to say, that his only