And rob in the behalf of charity."
Thus giving his reasons: "This line [the third] is so corrupt in the folio 1623, as to afford no sense. The words and their arrangement are the same in the second and third folio, while the fourth only alters would to will." Tyrwhitt read:
"For we would give much to use violent thefts,"
which is objectionable, not merely because it wanders from the text, but because it inserts a phrase, "to use violent thefts," which is awkward and unlike Shakspeare. The reading I have adopted is that suggested by Mr. Amyot, who observes upon it: "Here, I think, with little more than transposition (us being, substituted for we, and would omitted), the meaning, as far as we can collect it, is not departed from nor perverted, as in Rowe's strange interpolation:
"For us to count we give what's gain'd by thefts."
The original is one of the few passages which, as it seems to me, must be left to the reader's sagacity, and of the difficulties attending which we cannot arrive at any satisfactory solution."
Mr. Collier's better judgment has here given way to his deference for the opinion of his worthy friend; the deviation from the old copy being quite as violent as any that he has ever quarrelled with in others.
Bearing in mind Mr. Hickson's valuable canon (which should be the guide of future editors), let us see what is the state of the case. The line is a nonsensical jumble, and has probably been printed from an interlineation in the manuscript copy, two words being evidently transposed, and one of them, at the same time, glaringly mistaken. The poet would never have repeated the word count, which occurs in the first line, in the sense given to it either by Mr. Collier or by Mr. Knight.
Preserving every word in the old copy, I read the passage thus:—
"O! be persuaded. Do not count it holy