Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31 92401 31 55993 
 
PR2971.G5H19"""""""-"'"^ 
 '^i?iK™?™.?L'li;i,?'*='" Shaksperian critic 
 
 3 1924 013 155 993 
 

 CURIOSITIES OF MODEM 
 
 SHAKSPBRIAN CRITICISM. 
 
 vx 
 
 J. O. HALLIWELL, ESQ. F.R.S. &c. 
 
 LONDON: 
 JOHN EUS&ELL SMITH, 36, SOHO SQUARE. 
 
 MDCCCLUI. 
 
CURIOSITIES OF MODEM 
 
 SHAKSPERIAN CRITICISM. 
 
 BY 
 
 J. O. HALLIWELL, ESQ. F.R.S. &c. 
 
 LONDON : 
 JOHN EUSSELL SMITH, 36, SOHO SQUAEE. 
 
 MDCCCLIIl. 
 
LONDON : E. TTTOKEB, rRINTEB, PEItM'S PLACE, OXEOED STEEET. 
 
CURIOSITIES, ETC. 
 
 The judgment of contemporary criticism, with respect 
 to the merits of works of learning and research, has scarcely 
 a perceptible influence on the opinions of those for whom 
 they are chiefly designed ; and its effect even on the 
 general reader is of a very ephemeral character, for when- 
 ever a work possesses valuable information peculiar to itself, 
 there is a certainty that it will be appreciated in time, 
 in opposition to all adverse testimonies. To be convinced 
 of the truth of this, it is sufficient to refer to the older 
 reviews, ±o their angry denunciations of books which have 
 outlived even the names of the critics, or lavish praises of 
 others long since forgotten, and to the weU-established fact 
 that scarcely ever, even by accident, does a contempora- 
 neous critic assign to a work the exact place that it 
 occupies in the estimation of posterity. It is hardly 
 requisite to refer to examples, which will occur to almost 
 every reader ; yet there may be selected one as peculiarly 
 bearing on the subject of the present pamphlet— Donee's 
 Illustrations — a work which now holds so distinguished 
 and standard a place in Shaksperian literature, but which 
 was so unfairly attacked on its first publication, its too 
 sensitive author never subjected himself to a similar assault, 
 and the other results of his vast reading are unfortunately 
 
4 
 
 reserved for the benefit of a future age — one of the many 
 lamented consequences arising from the license conven- 
 tionally permitted to the periodical critics. 
 
 Deeply impressed with the slight importance, in regard to 
 the work itself, to be attached to the angry denunciations 
 of the weekly reviewers, I was fully prepared for the opinion 
 of my friends that any reply to a rancorous attack on my 
 folio edition of the Works of Shakespeare, which appeared 
 in the AthencBwm, would be unnecessary for the sake of 
 any readers of the work itself, and would, in fact, be 
 giving the assault a character of greater importance than 
 could reasonably be attached to it. And such an opinion 
 would, under ordinary circumstances, have been most 
 sound. Had the reviewers, for example, merely ridiculed 
 the design of the work, expressed their contempt for its 
 archaeological commentaries, disagreed with all its criti- 
 cisms, and exercised their severity in any other way that 
 might by possibility have been conscientious,— not a word 
 would have been extracted from me in reply. I should 
 have been well contented to have allowed the work to have 
 awaited the opinion of the student. But the Athenmum, 
 reviewers have gone further than this, although they have 
 not given expression to so sweeping a condemnation : they 
 have done worse, though the effects of their criticism will 
 certainly be ultimately more innocuous. In, despair of 
 injuring the work by fair means, they have descended to 
 misrepresent facts for the sake of establishing a censure 
 against its editor. It is for the public to decide whether 
 they w;ill accept this mode of criticism — whether, in short, 
 they will in future give credence to reviewers, who, rather 
 than forego an attack on a work against which they are 
 
prejudiced, will assert circumstances not at all warranted 
 by facts. 
 
 It is not my intention to bandy words with the re- 
 viewers — I shall confine myself most exclusively to bare 
 matters of fact, that are capable of proofs I entreat the 
 reader 'to look into the subject for himself, and decide on 
 facts alone, not allowing his judgment to be influenced by 
 subtle reasoning, which convinces only by words; — and 
 I shall not be afraid of the result. The reviewers, having 
 the command of circulation, and addressing chiefly those 
 who will not take the trouble to examine for themselves, 
 may persuade the indifierent to adopt almost any view they 
 may please to support ; but there will still be a few, who 
 will eventually exercise an important influence on the 
 opinions of the many, and wiU give an impartial judgment 
 derived from the real facts. I wiU now, without further 
 preface, give the reviewers' ov\ti words, and conclusively 
 demonstrate to every unbiassed reader that I have been 
 subjected to the unfairest kind of criticism. 
 
 1 . The reviewers, after observing the work "contains a mul- 
 titude of pretty little illustrations by Fairholt and facsimiles 
 by Netherclift, aU which have been worked most carefully, 
 and show to great advantage on stout paper manufactured by 
 Dickinson," proceed to say, — "The illustrations of Stratford 
 scenery and objects have all been borrowed from other works 
 of Mr. Halliwell and Mr. Fairholt ; but they tell well in their 
 present places, and enable Mr. Halliwell to make a great 
 display in his first volume. Certainly, if Mr. Halliwell is able 
 to borrow as many illustrations for his subsequent volumes. 
 
6 
 
 arid shall carry out his scheme with anything like the spirit 
 of this beginning, the subscribers Ivill have good reason to con- 
 gratulate themselves on possessing a handsome-looking set of 
 books which can be in the hands of only very few people." 
 This statement is not correct, there being no fewer than 
 thirty-eight new engravings and facsimiles relating to 
 Stratford, and to the Shakespeares in connection with 
 Stratford ; Mr. Pairholt having accompanied me again over 
 the localities which connect themselves with the history of 
 the poet and his family, and examined anew the entire 
 series of church books and corporation papers that in any 
 way relate thereto, for the purpose of completing facsimiles 
 of the entire series. Even in the account of the birth-place 
 in Henley Street, in respect to which I have necessarily 
 used for the most part previous engravings, and where one 
 would have thought new artistic material impossible of 
 access, there are two interesting objects never previously 
 engraved in any work on the subject, viz. the garret over 
 the room in which Shakespeare was bom, and the lower 
 room in John Shakespeare's house, both of which are 
 important as convejdng a clear idea of the original state of 
 the house. The reviewers may have been misled in some 
 respect by several of the new woodcuts being necessarily 
 very similar to other engravings of the same objects, but 
 they should have examined them more minutely before 
 they inferred that they had all been borrowed. I can truly 
 say I have not spared, on account of the expense, a single 
 engraving I thought might be interesting or valuable. 
 
 2. " The first part is a reprint, with some few alterations. 
 
of Mr. HalliwelVs ' Life of Shakespeare,' jjuhlished in one 
 volume, octavo, 1848.* This occupies half of the volume, 
 running from p. 1 to p. 263." So far from this being the 
 case, the biography has been almost entirely re- written, 
 and nearly one half is additional matter, not to be found 
 in the octavo edition. There are several newly-discovered 
 papers respecting John Shakespeare, and no fewer than six 
 new documents respecting Shakespeare himself, besides the 
 three very curious notices of the poet at p. 223, which con- 
 tain the last mention of him previous to his death. The 
 whole biography has been corrected, added to, and materially 
 altered in every respect, as might be ascertained by any one 
 making even a cursory examination of the two works ; and 
 it is altogether unfair to call it a " reprint, with some few 
 alterations." Throughout this portion of my work, I did 
 not rely even on what I had previously published, but again 
 examined «very document, wherever it was located, and 
 devoted a month at Stratford to the most minute collation 
 of the important papers there. 1 can conscientiously say, 
 that I spared neither labour nor expense in my examina- 
 tions ; and all matters which I had previously taken on 
 
 * A very curious instance of the reviewers' accuracy occurs in their 
 notice of this work, in which they accuse me of omitting an " important 
 portion " of the passage in Dugdale's ' Diary ' respecting the monumental 
 bust at Stratford. Having quoted the whole of the passage with literal 
 accuracy, it was very long before I discovered the probable cause of such 
 a singular mis-statement ; but I have since found the account in Dugdale 
 quoted altogether incorrectly, with the interpolation of several words from 
 atiother document, in Mr. Cunningham's Hand-book of London. Because, 
 therefore, I did not repeat this oversight, I am accused of omitting a 
 passage in Dugdale which no one but Mr. Cunningham has been fortunate 
 enough to find. 
 
8 
 
 trust, I took great pains to examine for myself: I was 
 rewarded by saving myself from the error of again quoting 
 the Bridgewater papers as genuine. 
 
 3. " Tliere are now published two or three facsimiles of 
 formal legal documents relating to the Henley Street house!' 
 
 This merely shows how carelessly the reviewers have exa- 
 mined the work, there being only one facsimile of the kind 
 — and a very important one it is, being the only early 
 document of the slightest value in showing the probabiUty 
 that Shakespeare was bom in the house jiow shown as the 
 birth-place. It exhibits the sUght attention paid by re- 
 viewers to these subjects, to find that with one exception — 
 which occurred in an able Shaksperian article in the Times 
 — not a single critic has observed the real importance of 
 this deed. One would have thought that the leading 
 members of a Committee that gave so large a sum for the 
 house, would have adopted with avidity the only evidence 
 yet discovered that will justify their zeal. The copy of it 
 was procured by me at the cost of great trouble and 
 expense. 
 
 4. "A gentleman, who is very sharp on the blunders of 
 other people, should be a little more accurate himself. 
 Mistakes which Mr. Halliwell sets down as evidences of the 
 ignorance of the scrivener, are shown by these facsimiles to 
 be mere mis-readings by himself." This is a curious speci- 
 men of the haphazard sort of criticism indulged in by the 
 reviewers. In the first place, 1 am not aware that there is a 
 single instance in my work in which I have been "very sharp" 
 — to use the reviewers' phraseology — on the blunders of 
 
9 
 
 other people. In the second, it is a positive fact, that the 
 only mistake pointed out by me as an error of the scrivener, 
 cum pertinentiis jacentiwm, in the documentary evidence 
 alluded to, viz., that respecting the house in Henley Street, 
 is to be found in the facsimile ! What can one say to 
 criticism of this kind ? 
 
 5. " The Essay on the formation of the text is perhaps 
 the best of Mr. HalliwelVs additions to Shakespeare criti- 
 cism. It has, however, but slender claims to oric/inality. It 
 is an enlargement of a paper printed in the first volume of 
 the old Variorum, entitled 'Essay on the Phraseology and 
 Metre of Shakespeare and his Contemporanes.'" This is an 
 excessive exaggeration, and can only, I fear, be considered 
 as a wilful mis-statement. The Essay alluded to wiU be 
 found in vol. i, pp. 507-585, of Malone's Shakespeare, ed. 
 Boswell, 8vo, 1821, and I do not think any one will openly 
 say that mine is a mere enlargement of it : — there is scarcely 
 indeed, any similarity to be traced between the two. The 
 Essay in BosweU is chiefly on the metre, and the observa- 
 tions on the phraseology are restricted to a few peculiarities 
 of diction ; while the Essay in my work — I do not see 
 why I should affect reserve in such a matter — chiefly con- 
 sists of an elaborate inquiry into Ehzabethan idiom, which, 
 with the exception of a very small proportion of the examples, 
 is entirely original. 
 
 6. The reviewer, after giving a shght note of the prin- 
 cipal features of my introduction to the Tempest, and abso- 
 lutely mentioning the history of the Dead Indian, observes, 
 — " III aU this — and these subjects comprise everything of 
 
10 
 
 importance in the Introduction — there is nothing new." 
 Now it is difficult to imagine a greater mis-statement than 
 this. The account of the Dead Indian is almost entirely 
 new — I may mention especially the curious notices now 
 for the first time collected from records of the time, furnish- 
 ing a connected history of the Indian, and the exceedingly 
 curious drawing from a MS. in Canterbury Cathedral, the 
 examination of which entailed the trouble of a journey to 
 Mr. Fairholt and myself, that we thought was amply repaid 
 by the acquisition of one of the most interesting pictorial 
 illustrations of Shakespeare ever discovered. In addition 
 to these, I may mention the account of the exhibition of a 
 ' strange fish,' from the singular broadside in Mr. Daniel's 
 collection, as quite new ; and the notice of Ayrer's play is 
 given at greater length than in any other publication. In 
 fact, the Introduction to this play is full of new information 
 and original reasoning ; and, as the impression of the work 
 is so limited, it may not be amiss to draw attention to an 
 important supplementary notice at pp. 504-6, which shows 
 clearly who was the historical prototype of Prospero. The 
 conclusion of the Itahan extract indicates, for the first time, 
 the real foundation of one of the chief incidents of the 
 Temjpest. 
 
 7. " Wliat Mr. Halliwell has written about A^rer splay, 
 although he undervalues its importance when excusing him- 
 self for not saying more, is really of sufficient interest to 
 stimulate fresh inquiry on the subject. But where is this 
 play to be seen? Wltence did Mr. Halliwell derive his 
 knowledge of it? If from an account by Mr. Thorns, where 
 is that to be found? Information of this kind ought never 
 
11 
 
 to be omitted. Editors should remember that they do not 
 write for those who know, but for those who do not, — and 
 that their Judgments are valueless unless tliey give the most 
 distinct opportunity of going to their authorities." But for 
 their own confession, I should have thought it incredible 
 that the reviewers have so little knowledge of the commonest 
 works of dramatic criticism, as not to know that Ayrer's 
 play is to be found in one of Tieck's best known publica- 
 tions; but the reviewers again misrepresent me, as I have 
 distinctly stated that the play alluded to was reprinted by 
 Tieck, observing that the similarities to be traced between 
 that production and the Tempest are of so insignificant 
 a character, that its repetition in my work was altogether 
 unnecessary. It may well be asked, as the reviewers have 
 never seen Ayrer's play, how is it possible for them to know 
 that I have undervalued its importance? Is not this an 
 evidence of the reviewers' mere guess-work in their opinions 
 on such subjects ? I have given as full an account of those 
 parts of Ajrrer's play which are analogous to incidents in 
 the Tempest, as they at all deserve ; an account derived from 
 a perusal of the play itself. 
 
 8. " He {Mr. Halliwell) describes how it was customary 
 to dress ancient magicians on the stage ; and he gives Inigo 
 Jones s representation of an ' aery spirit ;' but without any 
 hint of where he got it from!' The reviewers must have 
 examined the work very hastily, because I distinctly state, 
 in the text, that the representation is taken from Inigo's 
 sketches for his masques ; and in the List of Illustrations, 
 the most conspicuous part of the book, I describe it 
 as, "the figure of an 'aery spirit' from the illustrations 
 
12 
 
 to Inigo Jories's Masques, published by the Shakespfeare 
 Society." Surely these are sufficient references to a work 
 so exceedingly well known. 
 
 9. "Mr. HalliwelVs text of 'the Tempest' differs hut 
 little from that of the old Variorum." So far from this 
 being the case, it differs in nearly every page, and, in some 
 respects, very materially. It is, indeed, scarcely credible 
 that the reviewers, having made this sweeping statement} 
 should confess, only a few lines afterwards, — " We do not 
 
 pretend to have gone through the play ; but we have dipped 
 into it here and there." If so, how could the reviewers 
 honestly state that my text differs but little from that of 
 the old Variomm ? It would be difficult to imagine a more 
 striking example than this affords of the reviewers' own 
 confession of their absolute unfairness. 
 
 10. "All the difficulties in the text remain entirely un- 
 touched hy Mr. Halliwell ; not one of them — so far as we 
 have noticed — is got rid of, or even lightened." The " diffi- 
 culties" in the text of this play are not numerous^ but there 
 is scarcely one on which I have not thrown some new light. 
 The reader will remember that an absolute explanation of 
 the few words in Shakespeare not at all understood, cati 
 only be recovered by vast labour and reading : nevertheless, 
 even in this well-known play, the peculiar use of the term 
 ,^^e;2__perhaps the greatest stumbling-block to the critics 
 ■ — is unravelled for the first time by two extracts quoted in 
 my edition. On the other difficulties — such as scamels, 
 trash, Butt, deck'd, busy-least, twilled^ the hair line, and rack 
 there is always some novelty to be found in my notes ; 
 
18 
 
 and, with respect to the last, I find I have arrived, by a 
 different line of reading, to the opinion given by Mr. Dyce 
 in his excellent Few Notes, which was published after fthough 
 written before) the appearance of my edition of .ne play. 
 In fact, with one trifling exception, Mr. Dyce ' as adopted 
 the same views as myself in his notes on the readings of 
 this drama. 
 
 11. Mr. Halliwell gives, p. 474, " three extracts to prove 
 thai vanity was used for the physical or mental affection desig- 
 nated by light-headedness, — that, however, being admitted 
 not to be the sense in which Shakespeare uses the word." 
 This conveys a misrepresentation of my note, which runs 
 thus, — " Vanity, delusion, illusion. A person, who was 
 light-headed, was formerly said to have the vanity in his 
 head," where the word vanity of course stands for delusion 
 or illusion. The three extracts show clearly that such was 
 the meianing of the term, not that the word vanity, by itself, 
 was ever used for light-headedness. 
 
 13. Perhaps the; reviewers have reached the chmax of 
 misrepresentation, when they boldly state that, " much of it 
 {the annotation on theplay) is derivedfrom. the old Variorum." 
 Any reader, who will take the trouble to compare the two 
 editions, will find how small a portion is derived from the 
 latter work; and how much is original. Such an accusation 
 is so obviously contrary to fact, that it scarcely deserves con- 
 tradiction ; were it not that there are always persons to be 
 found who will not be at the pains to examine for themselves. 
 For the sake of these,, it may be well to observe that out of 
 one hundred and eight folio pages of notes, only sixteen 
 
14 
 
 pages are derived from the Variorum, and even those few 
 chiefly consist of extracts re-collated at the cost of great 
 labour and trouble. 
 
 It is unnecessary to pursue the subject further. If, in 
 a short notice of little more than two pages, the Athe- 
 nceum reviewers can condescend to misrepresentations of 
 so obvious and unfair a nature, their animus towards the 
 Editor of the work they are criticising is too apparent to 
 reqilire further exposure. I am perfectly contented to leave 
 the matter to the judgment of the public, begging them 
 again and again to derive that judgment from " facts," and 
 not from " opinions." 
 
 It may, however, be worth while to ascertain, how far the 
 Athenaeum reviewers, who venture to pronounce so arrogant 
 a judgment on my edition of the Tempest, minutely un- 
 derstand the text of Shakespeare ; and again I will adhere 
 to subjects that are undoubted matters of fact, not men- 
 tioning those that depend for their determination on critical 
 opinions, in respect to which there is naturally so much 
 room for disagreement. In the second scene of the third 
 act, where Ariel creates confusion between Caliban, Ste- 
 phano, and Trinculo, — 
 
 Ste. Didst thou not say he lied ? 
 
 Ari. Thou liest ! 
 
 Ste. Do I so ? take thou that \atrikes html. As you like this, give me 
 
 the lie another time. 
 Trin. I did not give thee the lie; 
 
 the reviewers, observing that the introduction of thee in the 
 last line is " entirely unnecessary and wrong" — an opinion 
 
15 
 
 at all events open to question — say, " ixihat can he said in 
 defence of this, we cannot conjecture." But this reading, 
 ignored by the reviewers, is positively to be found in one 
 of the folios, being one of the best of the few emendations 
 made by the editor of 1685 ! How is it possible to argue 
 on these subjects with those who are unprovided with the 
 simple knowledge absolutely necessary to render any discus- 
 sion profitable? 
 
 Tn the preparation of the text I have, for reasons given 
 in my essay on Elizabethan phraseology, considered the 
 singulars and plurals, in certain cases, to be interchangeable; 
 and the variations hence introduced are alone very nume- 
 rous, but they are generally too simple and obvious to 
 require in all cases separate notification. Thus, in Ferdi- 
 nand's speech, at the commencement of the third act, — 
 
 I forget : 
 
 But these sweet thoughts do even refresh my labours. 
 Most busy-less when I do it. 
 
 According to the principles on which I have worked, we 
 must either alter labours to labour, or it to them ; and I 
 have adopted the former alteration as the most simple and 
 obvious. The amiable reviewers, however, attribute the 
 alteration to " niere carelessness," not observing the neces- 
 sity of any change-^a question I shall be well contented to 
 leave to be determined by any reader's common sense. 
 The reviewers misquote me when they make me say that 
 the passage, as above, is " unquestionably corrupt."* I 
 regard in that light the reading of the first folio, most busy 
 least, but consider that Theobald has restored the author's 
 true language by his admirable suggestion of busy-less. 
 
16 
 
 In the reading last mentioned, as in all instances of the 
 kind where the old text is corrupt, I have selected the best 
 conjectural emendation that has been suggested. The 
 Athenmum reviewers recommend me to " strive to amend 
 obvious corruptions by entering into the author's spirit," a 
 recommendation in itself sufficiently obvious ; but it is easy 
 to see, from their late criticisms, that the taste of these 
 reviewers evidently inclines to violent alterations in the text, 
 in passages that mostly require only a little attention to be 
 perfectly intelligible as they stand in the original. If it 
 were fair to select examples from their criticisms on the 
 whole of the plays, I could indeed produce a singular tes- 
 timony as to their want of knowledge and judgment ; but 
 I win adhere to the single play of the Tempest, and, even 
 from their few notices of that play alone, I shall be enabled 
 to exhibit instances of the incompetency of the reviewers to 
 comprehend some of the simplest passages in the text. I 
 will take, for example, the speech of Ceres, in the fourth 
 act, — 
 
 Earth's increase, foison plenty. 
 Bams and garners never empty ; 
 ■Vines, with clust'ring bunches growing ; 
 Plants, with goodly burden bowing : 
 Spring come to yow, at tJw farthest. 
 In tlie very end of harvest ! 
 Scarcity and want shall shun you ; 
 Ceres' blessing so is on you. 
 
 Where the meaning of the two lines printed in Itahcs is so 
 exceedingly obvious — ^Let Spring come to you, at latest, at 
 the end of harvest, so that no Winter shall intervene — that 
 not even one of the much abused commentators thought they 
 
17 
 
 needed any explanation.* It is, indeed, scarcely credible that 
 any men, professing to understand the spirit of Shakespeare's 
 language, should now propose to read, — 
 
 Rain come to you, at the farthest, 
 In the very end of harvest ! 
 
 or that the Atheneeum reviewers should select this strange 
 corruption as one of the alterations which "recommend 
 themselves to adoption by that surest of all criticisms, the 
 judgment of common sense !" Surely, if the judgment of 
 common sense is to decide these questions, they should be 
 referred to the common sense of those who understand 
 something more of the author's meanings. 
 
 The reviewers have scarcely committed a less error in 
 recommending the new reading which is based on the 
 incorrect supposition that the term flote was not a genuine 
 English word ; but I will pass to another instance, appre- 
 ciable by every reader, in which the reviewers again are 
 wanting in a knowledge of Shakespeare's common mode 
 of expression. It occurs in the fifth act, in Prospero's 
 speech, where he says, addressing the fairies — 
 
 you demy-puppets, that 
 
 By moonshine do the green-sour ringlets make. 
 Whereof the ewe not bites ; 
 
 * The note on the passage in my folio edition was in print before the 
 appearance of the comments of Mr. Knight and Mr. Smibert on the same 
 lines. Both these critics adopt in effect the same interpretation, and, 
 indeed, it is impossible two opinions can be entertained on the subject. 
 " But for the evidence of eyesight," observes Mr. Smibert, " I should 
 scarcely have believed it possible for any one to have proposed the reading 
 of rain for spring. The mere agricultural absurdity is huge, inasmuch as 
 Ceres would be thus absolutely desiring the destruction of all husbandry, 
 and assigning the blessing of rains only when the fields were bared, and 
 showers unneeded." 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 where the reviewers, not aware that compound adjectives 
 abound in Shakespeare, and losing sight of the second 
 epithet being required by the sense of the following hne, 
 approve of the substitution green-sward. The meaning of 
 the original, is obvious, the fairy -rings being dark green in 
 colour, and the grass of which they are composed, rank. 
 It may be well to add a few examples of similar compounds 
 for the reviewers' information : — 
 
 The white-cold virgin snow upon my heart 
 Abates the ardour of my liver. 
 
 The Temped, act iv. 
 
 Turns into yellow gold his satt-green streams. 
 
 A Midsummer Nighfa Bream, act iii. 
 
 If thou didst put this sour-cold habit on, 
 To castigate thy pride, 'twere well. 
 
 Timon of Athens, act iv. 
 
 The above examples the reviewers' criticisms are 
 selected from their brief notice of one play alone, and I 
 would confidently ask any impartial reader whether critics, 
 who are thus proved to understand so little of Shake- 
 speare's meaning and language, are competent to pass a 
 censure on the labom-s of others? I have shown indis- 
 putably that they reject readings as worthless and un- 
 authorised, without taking the trouble to refer even to the 
 first four folios ; and that they do not comprehend some of 
 the simplest passages in the poet's works. The public wUl 
 hardly surrender their judgment to men thus convicted of 
 incompetency, though the latter may be concealed for a 
 time from the unreflecting by the extreme arrogance with 
 which their opinions are promulgated. 
 
 It is still more extraordinary that the reviewers should 
 
19 
 
 inconsiderately accuse me of being severe on the errors of 
 others, because there is not a single passage in the work 
 that can be produced in which I have used any language 
 that can by possibUity be contorted into a semblance of dis- 
 courtesy ; and it is unjust on their part in the extreme that 
 they should lead the public to infer I have acted differently. 
 With respect to the new annotations, instead of dismissing 
 them "very contemptuously," as the reviewers assert, 
 I have calmly discussed in the notes every one of the 
 slightest importance ; and on examining my remarks upon 
 them, I cannot find any that are expressed in other than 
 the fairest language. The nearest approach made to cen- 
 sure is calling the new reading — "most busy, blest" — 
 a very unhappy conjecture, ray sincere opinion still, and 
 most certainly given without any intention of being un- 
 courteous. If, indeed, this be language too severe, what 
 must be said of Mr. Dyce's, who, coming after me, styles 
 the emendation "forced and awkward in the very extreme," 
 and a " scarcely intelligible alteration ?" So far from 
 treating any critic " contemptuously," I am one of those 
 who firmly beheve that such and so vast is the compass of 
 knowledge comprehended in the works of Shakespeare, 
 there is scarcely an individual to be found who could not, 
 in one way or other, add to our knowledge of his meanings; 
 and, in this spirit, I have despised no sources of informa- 
 tion, but have dispassionately examined all that were 
 accessible, with the sole object of the determination of 
 accuracy and truth. The new folio edition of Shakespeare 
 is, I venture to assert, the first comprehensive edition yet 
 published which aims at the accumulation of useful infor- 
 mation, entirely free from the squabbles and controversies 
 
20 
 
 of opposing critics; and when the reviewers assert my 
 " commentator-like propensity to pick holes in the labours 
 of other men," they have committed themselves to a serious 
 misrepresentation, which I am perfectly satisfied will impair 
 their character for fairness in the estimation of every im- 
 partial reader of the work itself. 
 
 I now pass to one of the most important subjects ani- 
 madverted upon by the reviewers — the spuriousness of the 
 celebrated Bridgewater MSS, — and here, as it seems to me, 
 the reviewers ol^eAthenccum may well be considered to have 
 revealed one reason of their animosity towards the work. If 
 I am correct in thinking that the whole of the Shakesperian 
 MSS. in the possession of the Earl of EUesmere are modem 
 forgeries, — that an important letter, discovered at Dulwich 
 College, has been misinterpreted, — or, that some remark- 
 able ballads are compositions of comparatively recent date 
 — it is unnecessary to say that the chief of the far-famed 
 Shakesperian discoveries of Mr. Collier are of small value 
 indeed ; and Mr. CoUier is generally understood to be one 
 of the AthetuBum reviewers ! On the subject of these MSS, 
 I shall again request the reader's attention to facts, reprint- 
 ing in the first place the following observations on the subject 
 from the first volume of my folio edition : — 
 
 " It is mucli to be regretted that it now seems necessary to pass, for a 
 time, from the consideration of the authentic records on which the account 
 of Shakespeare's personal history is founded. They have not, it is true, 
 furnished as much as could be wished of that description of information 
 which is chiefly of use to the moralist or philosopher ; but what little has 
 been laboriously collected from the ancient manuscripts of Stratford, 
 London, and Worcester, is certainly not to be despised. It has, at least, 
 the merit of perfect authenticity ; for, aware of the lamentable attempts 
 that have been made to deceive the world in all that relates to the great 
 
21 
 
 drnmaiist, I was determined, at the risk of encountering a vast labour 
 which can only find its reward in the future appreciation of the authority 
 of the workj to make a personal inspection and examination of every 
 document of the slightest importance respecting the history of Shake- 
 speare and his family. It appeared to be more advisable to hazard the 
 possibility of rejecting a genuine paper by an excess of caution, than to 
 impair the value of the biography by the insertion of any that were subject 
 to the expression of the slightest doubt ; and in the prosecution of these 
 enquiries, I have been aided by the judgment of Mr. W. H. Black, an 
 assistant-keeper of Her Majesty's records, and well known as one of the 
 most accomplished palseographists of the day, whose advice has been 
 always most kindly and generously afforded. The reader may, therefore, 
 be assured that every care has heen taken to avoid the possibility of 
 deception ; and that aU the evidences here printed have been submitted to 
 the minutest examination, and the most anxious scrutiny. 
 
 " Having adopted these severe regulations for the guidance of my 
 researches, it was inevitably essential that the remarkable papers which 
 were discovered by Mr. Collier in the archives of the Earl of Ellesmere, 
 and published by him in the year 1836, should be carefully examined. 
 There was, in fact, a special necessity for these documents, beyond all 
 others, being critically scrutinized, for they were the only records that of 
 late years have found a place in the biographies of Shakespeare, the 
 genuineness of which has been questioned. There is nothing in the 
 account of their discovery to suggest a doubt. 'They were derived,' 
 observes Mr. CoUier, ' from the manuscripts of Lord Ellesmere, whose 
 name is of course weU known to every reader of our history, as Keeper of 
 the Great Seal to Queen Elizabeth, and Lord Chancellor to James I. 
 They are preserved at Bridgewater House ; and Lord Francis Egerton 
 gave me instant and unrestrained access to them, with permission to 
 make use of any literary or historical information I could discover. The 
 Kev. H. J. Todd had been there before me, and had classed some of the 
 documents and correspondence ; but large bundles of papers, ranging in 
 point of dale between 1581, token Lord Ellesmere was made Solicitor- 
 General, and 1616, when he retired from the office of Lord Chancellor, 
 remained unexplored, and it was evident that nmny of them had never been 
 opened from the time witen, perhaps, his oion hands tied tliem together.' It 
 uas amongst these latter that the Shakespeare manuscripts were dis- 
 
22 
 
 covered ; and if, as is possible, a fabricator had inserted tliem in those 
 bundles, a more recent enquirer, investigating the collection under the 
 impression it had not been examined for upwards of two centuries, would 
 be inclined to receive every paper as genuine, and as not requiring any 
 minute investigation for the establishment of its authority. Suspicion 
 would be disarmed, and it is possible that in this way Mr. CoUier has 
 been deceived. 
 
 " When I came to make a personal inspection of these interesting 
 papers, facilities for which were kindly granted by their noble owner, 
 grave doubts were at once created as to their authenticity. The most 
 important of all, the certificate from the players of the Blackfriars' Theatre 
 to the Privy Council in 1589, instead of being either the original or a 
 contemporary copy, is evidently at best merely a late transcript, if it be 
 not altogether a recent fabrication. 
 
 " The question naturally arises, for what purpose could a document of 
 this description have been copied in the seventeenth century, presuming 
 it to belong to so early a period ? It is comparatively of recent times 
 that the slightest literary interest has been taken in the history of our 
 early theatres, or even in the biography of Shakespeare ; and, unless it 
 was apparent that papers of this kind were transcribed for some legal or 
 other special purpose, there should be great hesitation in accepting the 
 evidence on any other but contemporary authority. The suspicious 
 appearance of this certificate is of itself sufiicient to justify great diffi- 
 culties in its reception ; but the doubt thus induced as to the integrity of 
 the collection was considerably increased by an examination of a paper 
 in the same volume, purporting to be a warrant appointing Daborne, 
 Shakespeare, !Pield,and Kirkham, instructors of the Children of the Queen's 
 Eevels, which unquestionably appears to be a modem forgery. This docu- 
 ment is styled by Mr. Collier ' a draft either for a Patent or a Privy Seal.' 
 Tt is not a draft, for the lines are written book-wise, and it is also dated ; 
 neither is it a copy of a patent, as appears from the direction, ' Eight 
 trustie and welbeloved;' but, if genuine, it must be considered an 
 abridged transcript of a warrant, under the sign-manual and signet, for a 
 patent to be issued. Now if it be shown that the letters patent to 
 'Daborne and others' were granted on the same day on which Lord 
 EUesmere's paper is dated ; and if it be further proved that the contents 
 of the latter are altogether inconsistent with the circumstances detailed 
 
23 
 
 in the real patent, it will, I think, be conceded that no genuine draft 
 or transcript, of the nature of that printed by Mr. CoUier, can possibly 
 exist. 
 
 " It appears that the following note occurs in an entry-book of patents 
 that passed the Great Seal while it was in the hands of Lord EUesmere 
 in 7 James I. : — ' A Warrant for Kobert Dabome and others, the Queenes 
 Servants, to bring up and practise Children in Plaies by the name of the 
 Children of the Queen's EeveHs, for the pleasure of her Majestie, 4" Januarii, 
 anno septimo Jacobi." This entry may have suggested the fabrication, the 
 date of the questionable MS. corresponding with that here given ; though 
 it is capable of proof that, if it were authentic, it must have been dated 
 previously, for the books of the Signet Office show that the authority for 
 Dabome's warrant was obtained by the influence of Sir Thomas Munson in 
 the previous December, and they also inform us that it was granted ' to 
 Eobert Dabome, and other Servauntes to the Queene, from time to time 
 to provide and bring up a convenient nomber of Children to practize in 
 the quality of playing, by the name of the ChUdren of the Eevells to the 
 Queene, in the White Fryers, London, or any other convenient place where 
 he shall thinke fit.' The enrolment of the instrument, which was issued 
 in the form of letters patent under the Great Seal, recites, ' Whereas the 
 Quene, our deerest wyfe, hathe for hir pleasure and recreacion, when shee 
 shall thinke it fitt to have any playes or shewes, appoynted hir servantes 
 Eobert Dabome, PhUlippe Eosseter, John Tarbock, Kichard Jones, and 
 Eobert Browne, to provide and bring upp a convenient nomber of 
 children, whoe shalbe called Children of hir EeveUes, Know ye that 
 wee have appoynted and authorised, and by theis presentes do autho- 
 rize and appoynte the said Eobert Dabome, &c., from tyme to tyme, 
 to provide, keepe, and bring upp a convenient nomber of children, and 
 them to practice and exercise in the quality of playing, by the name of 
 Children of the" Eevells to the Queene, within the White Fryers in the 
 suburbs of our Citty of London, or in any other convenyent place where 
 they shall thinke fitt for that purpose.' This patent is dated January 4th, 
 7 Jac. I., 1609-10, so that any draft, or projected warrant, exhibiting 
 other names than the above, could not possibly have had this exact date. 
 It will be observed that the names, with the exception of that of Dabome, 
 are entirely different in the two documents, and this company of children 
 was to play at the Whitefriars, not at the Blackfriars. The fabricator 
 
24 
 
 seems to have relied on the supposition that the entry relative to 
 " Dabome and others" referred to the latter theatre ; and consequently- 
 inserted the name of Edward Kirkham, who is known to have been one 
 of the instructors to the Children of the "Revels at the Blackfriars in the 
 year 1604. There is, in fact, no reasonable supposition on which the 
 Ellesmere paper can be regarded as authentic. Had no date been attached 
 to it, it might have been said that the whole related merely to some con- 
 templated arrangement which was afterwards altered; although, even in 
 that case, the form of the copy would alone have been a serious reason 
 against its reception. In its present state, it is clearly impossible to 
 reconcile it with the contents of the enrolment just quoted. Eortunately for 
 the interests of truth, indications of forgery are detected in trifling cir- 
 cumstances that are almost invariably neglected by the inventor, however 
 ingeniously the deception be contrived. Were it not for this, the search 
 for historical truth would yield results sufficiently uncertain to deter the 
 most enthusiastic enquirer from pursuing the investigation. 
 
 The remaining Shakesperian MSS. in the possession of the Earl of 
 EUesmere, consist of a letter of Daniel the poet mentioning the great 
 dramatist as a candidate for the Mastership of the Queen's Kevels; 
 accounts in which a performance of Othello is stated to have taken place in 
 the year 1602; a remarkable paper detailing the values of the shares held by 
 Shakespeare and others in the Blackfriars' Theatre ; and a presumed early 
 copy of a letter signed " H. S.," supposed to have been written by Lord 
 Southampton, and containing singular notices of Burbage and Shakespeare. 
 The first two of these I have not seen, the volume including only a recent 
 transcript of Daniel's letter ; but the other two, which have been carefully 
 inspected, present an appearance by no means satisfactory. Although the 
 caUgraphy is of a highly skilful character, and judging solely from a fac- 
 simile of the letter, I should certainly have accepted it as genuine, yet an 
 examination of the original leads to a different judgment,the paper and ink 
 not appearing to belong to so early a date. It is a suspicious circumstance 
 that both these documents are written in anunusuallylarge character on folio 
 leaves of paper, ly the same hand, and are evidently not contemporaneous 
 cppies. Again may the question be asked, why should transcripts of 
 such papers have been made after the period to which the originals are 
 supposed to refer? It is also curious that copies only of these important 
 records should be preserved; and, on the whole, without offering a 
 
25 
 
 decisive opinion as to the spuriousnesB of the two last mentioned, there 
 is suflficient doubt respecting the whole collection to justify a reasonable 
 hesitation for the present in admitting any of them as genuine. The 
 interests of Kterature demand that these documents should be submitted 
 to a careful and minute examination by the best record-readers of the day, 
 by those who are continually engaged in the study of ancient manuscripts; 
 such, for example, as are the Deputy and various Assistant-keepers of the 
 Public Eecords, and the Keeper of the MSS. in the British Museum. 
 Should such an investigation take place, the water-marks in the paper 
 should be observed, and no minutiae omitted that are deserving of notice 
 in such an enquiry." 
 
 In the above observations, I have endeavovtred to put the 
 matter in the clearest possible light, with the utmost fair- 
 ness to Mr. Collier. I firmly believed in the genuineness 
 of the papers till the day on which I examined the originals — 
 and that my own convictions on the subject are sincere may 
 be gathered from the fact that, on the evening of that day, 
 I cancelled at the printer's that portion of the biography 
 in which I had previously inserted copies of the docu- 
 ments, and I also omitted the fac-simUe of the Southampton 
 letter, the expense of lithographing which had already been 
 incurred. / am convinced that one pajyer, at least — the 
 Daborne warrant — is a modern forgery, and so badly exe- 
 cuted, that it mil not even pass muster in a facsimile. But 
 fac-similes will not be sufficient to prove the authenticity of 
 suspected papers. The documents themselves must be 
 submitted to the scrutiny of the most competent judges, 
 before the public can be satisfied on the matter. In the 
 above statement, I have been careful not to express an 
 opinion which is not at the same time an absolute conviction. 
 It is, however, my opinion, gathered from the appearance 
 
26 
 
 of the papers themselves, that all the Bridgewater Shak- 
 sperian MSS. which I have seen are forgeries. 
 
 The reviewers, in drawing the attention of the public to 
 an opinion I had formerly expressed in favour of the 
 authenticity of the documents, somewhat overlook the im- 
 portant distinction between an opinion given merely from 
 internal evidence, and a conclusion derived from an 
 inspection of the papers themselves. In admitting, as I 
 have done, that I confided in their genuineness till the day 
 on which I saw the originals, I have placed the matter in 
 as fair a light as possible ; and as the MSS. will most pro- 
 bably ere long be submitted to the consideration of com- 
 petent judges, it is unnecessary to say I should hardly have 
 incurred the risk of giving an adverse opinion so distinctly, 
 were I not thoroughly convinced there were forcible reasons 
 for entertaining it. I can have but one object in such a 
 discussion — ^the discovery of the real truth, and the satis- 
 faction of endeavouring to place the materials of Shaksperian 
 criticism on a sound basis of authenticity. The paucity of 
 interesting evidences respecting Shakespeare is so great, it 
 would be a real source of congratulation to all of us could 
 the EUesmere MSS. ultimately be acknowledged to be 
 genuine; but the determination must be obtained from 
 the closest external scrutiny, as well as from internal 
 evidence. 
 
 The reviewers act injudiciously in insinuating that Mr. 
 Collier has been in the slightest degree contemptuously or 
 unfairly treated in my work ; and I will give an ample proof 
 that, so far from this being the case, I have been actuated 
 throughout by the sincerest feelings of kindness. It is, 
 I feel sure, sufficient for me, in this respect, to quote the 
 
27 
 
 observations I have made on the following misreading of 
 the Dulwich College MS. 
 
 " It may here be observed that a notice which first appeared in Mr. 
 Collier's interesting l/moM'« of Edward Alleyn, 1841, p. 63, apparently 
 showing that Shakespeare was in London in the month of October, 1603, 
 conveys an inaccurate reading of the original manuscript preserved at 
 Dulwich College, and cannot, therefore, be received as evidence. The 
 following, — 
 
 " Aboute a weeke agoe ther e a youthe who said he 
 
 was Mr. Frauncis Chalo . . . s man .... Id have borrow. d 
 
 x« to have bought things for .... s M' 
 
 t hym cominge without token d 
 
 I would have • 
 
 . . I bene sur 
 
 and inquire after the fellow, and said he had lent hym a horse. I feare 
 me he gulled hym, thoughe he gulled not us. The youthe was a prety 
 youthe, and hansom in appayrell : we know not what became of hym. 
 Mr. Bromffeild commendes hym : he was heare yesterdaye. Nicke and 
 Jeames be well, and commend them : so dothe Mr. Cooke and his weife 
 in the kyndest sorte, and so once more in the hartiest manner farwell," 
 
 is all that now remains of a postcript to a letter from Mrs. Alleyn to her 
 husband, the celebrated actor, dated October 20th, 1603. This letter is 
 written on a folio leaf of paper, the commencement of the above postscript 
 being at the end of the first page, the top of the second page, which is 
 perfect, beginning with the words, and inquire. The portion of the letter 
 containing the first lines of our extract is in a very decayed state, the 
 bottom of the leaf being rotten, and the writing not very easily to be 
 understood ; but the accompanying facsimile, wMcJi was carqfully traced 
 from tJie original by Mr. Fair holt, proves that Mr. Collier's interpretation 
 cannot be correct, inasmuch as it is irreconcileable with the position of 
 words that are clearly to be discovered in the remaining fragment. The 
 surpassing value of fac-simile copies is here apparent. It is so easy, in a 
 laborious work like the one in which the above error occurs, to misread 
 difficult writing, which even at a second glance, unless most carefully 
 examined in a strong light, may be misinterpreted ; the only safe resource. 
 
28 
 
 in all difficult cases, is to substantiate the reading by obtaining the assist- 
 ance of the artist. It would be bold to affirm, in opposition to Mr. Collier, 
 that the whole has been misunderstood, and that.the name of Shakespeare 
 has taken the place of some other similar in form ; but even admitting that 
 it was originally to be found in the decayed fragment, a circumstance 
 which appears to be extremely uncertain, it is beyond a doubt that the 
 sentence in which it occurred has been printed erroneously, and that the 
 true information the letter conveyed respecting the dramatist is now pro- 
 bably not to be recovered. The reader wiU bear in mind that the original 
 investigator of a large collection of documents does not possess the advan- 
 tages that attend those later enquirers, who are concentrating their atten- 
 tion to papers on a particular subject." 
 
 Mr. Fairholt's fac-simile of the passage, as it now remains, 
 is here given ; and the reader will distinctly observe that 
 Mr. Collier's reading does not correspond with the fac- 
 simile, and that his transcript must unquestionably be 
 incorrect. I annex the copy of the MS., as given by Mr. 
 Collier :— 
 
 " Aboute a weeke a goe there came a youthe who said he was M." 
 Frauncis Chaloner who would have borrowed x" to have bought things 
 for * * * and said he was known unto you, and M' Shakespeare of 
 the globe, who came * * * said he knewe hym not, onely he herde 
 of hym that he was a roge * * * so he was glade we did not lend 
 him the monney * * * Eichard Johnes [went] to seeke and inquire 
 after the fellow, and said he had lent hym a horse. I feare me he gulled 
 hym, thoughe he gulled not us. The youthe was a prety youthe, and 
 hansom in appayreU : we knowe not what became of hym. M"' Beniield 
 commendes hym ; he was heare yesterdaye. Nicke and Jeames be well, 
 and comend them : so doth M"' Cooke and his wiefe in the kyndest sorte, 
 and so once more in the hartiest manner farweU." 
 
 Now is it not clear from this, compared with Mr. Fair- 
 holt's facsimile, that Mr. Collier has misinterpreted the 
 
29 
 
 
 
 >^ 
 O 
 
 • a 
 
 O M 
 
 to -«) 
 rH [X, 
 
 n >: 
 
 -1 1^ 
 o 
 
 w « 
 
 S ft 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 a 
 
 09 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 s s 
 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
30 
 
 original ? otherwise we should discover in his copy the 
 words that are to be found in the facsimile. The fact is, 
 that Mr. Collier probably, in haste, took the words down 
 without sufficient examination. At aU events, the fac- 
 simile is an evidence against the exact reception of the 
 discovery. 
 
 In this, however, as in other questions, I am contented 
 to appeal to facts, and leave the rest to the determination 
 of the public. The reviewers are perfectly justified in not 
 accepting my opinion as to the spuriousness of Lord 
 EUesmere's MSS. — I adhere to the facts that prove one of 
 them not to be genuine, and appeal, as to the whole, to the 
 judgment of those who are best informed in such matters. 
 In the same way, with regard to the Dulwich College MS., 
 instead of entering into an argument on the subject, I give 
 a fac-simile, and scarcely express an opinion. The value of 
 my work depends, and will depend, on the authenticity of 
 its accumulated facts — facts, the importance of which are 
 determinable by any one who studied the subject — and it is 
 Mrith that conviction I may be excused setting too great a 
 value on the censures of the reviewers. 
 
 It is, indeed, far from being exclusively on my own account 
 that I publish these few controversial pages. That I am 
 personally nearly indifferent to the mere external acknow- 
 ledgments of criticism, may be well gathered from the cir- 
 cumstance of my consenting to entomb the results of so 
 many years' labour in so small an impression ; a fact which 
 also renders the greatest censure almost innocuous. But 
 I have a far higher motive than any that could result in the 
 hope of accomplishing a successful refutation of an adverse 
 critic. I cannot but think a public service wiU be rendered 
 
31 
 
 by the exposure of the incompetency and unfairness of a 
 Journal, which, by its arrogance and subtlety, is calculated 
 to impose on all but those who have paid peculiar attention 
 to the subjects on which it ventures to decide. That I shall 
 incur the well-known undying rancour entertained by its 
 reviewers towards aU who enter into conflict with them, is 
 certain ; but the effect of their animosity wiU be lessened 
 by the exposition now given of their animus towards the 
 writer. An adversary need not be greatly feared, when 
 his malevolence is generally known. 
 
 Beixton Hill, neak London, 
 Juli/, 1853. 
 
NOTE. 
 
 The Bridgewater MSS. being in private archives, and 
 only used for literary purposes by the liberality of their 
 noble and distinguished possessor, it may be well to observe, 
 lest the strong opinions here expressed as to their want of 
 authenticity be possibly thought to be in any way uncour- 
 teous, that the Earl of Ellesmere most generously gave the 
 writer the amplest permission to express any doubts that 
 may be entertained on the subject. 
 
 Prints b; B. Tucker, I'erry'e Place, Onford S(rcct.