CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 1924 084 657 372 All books are subject to recall after two weeks Olin/Kroch Library DATE DUE "•Whita^. '^^^ ' " "•■Wl «iW ■JkL O ^J******^ m GAYLORD PRINTED IN U.S.A Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924084657372 In Compliance with current copyright law, Cornell University Library produced this replacement volume on paper that meets the ANSI Standard Z39.48-1992 to replace the irreparably deteriorated original. 1998 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF 1S91 ^.3.033 Q.». a.tljnj s, 3777 COMPLETE VIEW or THE SHAKSPERE CONTROVERSY. " MiETJM ! LIBELLTTS rACTtTS FUEEAT FAMOSISSIMtTS. Cee- DISNE ? ViX : AT QrOMODO ? MaLIGNO QTTODAM * * PLENA MAEGINE ET SUPEB TEEGO, AITNOTATUM EST, ET EXEMPLI3, CALTJMNIIS POTItrS, SrPEEE^TATUM." EtJDOLPHI LakGII EpISTOLA ad AMICTTM, ETC. " Now, EEADEE, A FALSEHOOD is A EAXSEHOOD, THOUGH utteeed tinder cieoitmstances oe hdeet and sudden tee- pidation; but ceetainly it becomes, though not moeb a eaisehood, tet moee ceiminallt and hateeullx a falsehood, when peepaeed feom afar, and elaboeatelt suppoeted bt feaud, and dotetailing into fhaud, and hating no palliation feom peessuee and haste." De Quincey's Seoeet Societies. COMPLETE VIEW OF THE SHAKSPERE CONTROVEESY, CONCEENING THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS OF MANUSCRIPT MATTER AFFECTING THE WORKS AND BIOGRAPHY OF SHAKSPERE, PUBLISHED BY MR. J. PAYNE COLLIER AS THE FRUITS OF HIS RESEARCHES. BY C. M. OGLE BY, LL.D. OF THINITT OOIiliEGE, CAMBEIDGE. LONDON: NATTALI AND BOND, BEDFORD STREET, COVENT GAUDEN. 1861. E.V. The author reserves tJte rUjhl of translation. A,.3o330'f O. NORMAK, PKINTER, MAIDEN LANE, COVENT GARDEN. CONTENTS. PAGE. List of Manusceipts and Documents treated of in this work xiii List of Facsimiles . . . . . xv Adveetisement . . . . .1 Inteodttction . . . . .7 Warmtli of the Controversy . . . ., Unanimity of the Palseographists . . . „ Cause of the personal animus . . • « Indifference of the periodical press to the purity of Shak- spere's text . . . . .8 Cause of the indiscriminate praise which the puhlic awarded to the " old corrector " . . . .9 The necessity of a preliminary scrutiny of the Manuscripts overlooked by the public . . .10 The interests of literature jeopardised, not compromised . „ The Bridgewater House Manuscripts • . .11 The Dulwich College Manuscripts . . .12 The Petition of the Blackfriars Players to the Privy Coxmcil „ The supposititious Manuscripts . . ... Chaptee I. — The Bridgewater Polio . . .13 Authority of printed copies . . . . »> State of the text of the old copies . . .14 Value of the folio 1623 . . . .17 Province of conjecture . . . .19 Extremes of editorship . . . .21 Epoch of manuscript authority . . .22 List of manuscript corrections and erasures in the Bridge- water Polio . . • . .24 Palffiographic inquisition on the manuscript notes . 25 Chapter Jl. — The Perkins FoHo : — its purchase and examina- tion by Mr. Collier . . . .27 Mr. Collier's narratives . . . • ,» Mr. Collier's Notes and Emendations . . 33 Mr. Collier's affidavit in the matter of Literal Coohery . 38 Weight of Mr. Collier's character . . .40 Examination of alleged improbabilities in Mr. Collier's narrative . . . . .43 Mr. CoUier's attempt to corroborate his narrative . 49 VI CONTENTS. PAGE. Dr. Wellesley's letter to Mr. Collier . . .50 Ambiguous points in Dr. WeUesley's letter . . 51 Chapteb III. — THe Perkins Folio : — its supposititious Pedi- gree . . . . .53 Mr. J. Carrick Moore's letter to Mr. Collier . . „ Mr. CoUier's letter to Dr. Ingleby . . .55 Mr. Collier's antiguarian speculation in The Athenaeum . „ Mr. Collier's strange omission . . . .59 Preface to Notes and Emendations . . .60 General remarks on Mr. Collier's narratives . . 63 Eelative values of Mr. CoUier's and Mr. Parry's testimony 65 Mr. Parry's narrative . . . .66 Mr. Collier's narratives of his street interview with Mr. Parry . . . . .69 Mr. Parry's narrative of that interview . . 71 Evidence of Mr. CoUier's want of veracity . . 73 Mr. Parry's inspection of the Perkins Folio, . . 75 and his evidence thereupon . . .76 Mr. Collier's attempt to undermine this evidence . „ Kecovery of fly-leaf of Mr. Parry's FoHo . . 77 Chaptbe IV. — The Perkins FoHo : — Mr. Collier's account of its manuscript notes . . . .79 Mr. Collier's Notes and JStnendations . • „ Mr. CoUier's " List of every Manuscript Note and Emen- dation," &c. . . . . • „ Mr. CoUier's pretension for the completeness of his List . 80 Mr. Hamilton's List of every note and emendation in Hamlet . . . . .81 The charge of misrepresentation against Mr. CoUier stated 82 Mr. Collier's dilemma . . . .83 No principle seems to have guided Mr. CoUier in his re- jections . . . . .84 Examples of discrepancies between the Perkins FoUo and Mr. CoUier's account of it : . . .85 I. Michael Hopkins v. Nicholas Henton . . „ II. Fire v. sire . , . .86 ni. Sly «. fly . . . .87 IV. Eeeps v. feeds . . . • „ V. The statue scene in Winter's Talc . . 88 VI. Controul V. reproof . . . .90 CONTENTS. VU PAGE. VII. Eeserves v. reserve vice resumes . . .90 VIII. Importable ». importable vice impossible . . .91 IX. The skull scene ia 2 Hen. VI. . . . 92 Chaptbe V.^ — The Perkins Folio : — the Museum inquisition on its manuscript notes . . .93 Is the ink-writiag in a genuine hand of the 17th century P „ The three kinds of evidence available . . • » Presentation of the Perkins Folio to the late Duke of De- vonshire . . . . .94 Difficulty of access to it . . . .95 The occasion of its being sent to the British Museum . „ Sir F. Madden and Mr. Bond examine the manuscript notes 97 Sir F. Madden's opinion . . . .98 The volume in frequent request . . • >, Discovery of pencilling by Dr. Ingleby . . 99 Discovery of the correspondence between words in ink and words in pencil by Mr. Hamilton . . • >, Mr. Hamilton's account of his first examination of the manuscript notes .... 100 Prof. Maskelyne's three classes of experiments . . 101 Prof. Maakelyne suggests the use of the microscope . 102 Mr. Collier mistakes the Simonides' TJranius for a micro- scope . . . . . • f. The TJranius forgery of Simonides . . . 103 The forgery discovered by the use of the microscope . „ The result of the application of the microscope to the Per- kins notes ..... 104 The chemical test . . . . • « The mechanical test . . . • „ . General results of Prof. Maskelyne's examination . 105 The two questions for the solution of palseographists . „ Mr. Hamilton's account of the Perkins Folio and its manuscript notes .... 106 The fundamental mistake of Mr. R. Grant White and "Scrutator" . . . . .114 The primal evidence of forgery . . • ,, The secondary evidence of forgery . . . 115 Conclusion of the palajographic questions . . 116 Vlll CONTENTS. PAGE. Chaptee VI. — The Perkins Folio : — tke weak points in Mr. Collier's Replies concerning it . . • 117 Mr. CoUier's four replies . . . • » I. What folio of Shakspere did Dr. Wellesley see in Eodd'sshop? . . . . .118 II. The fact and origin of the pencil-writing . . 121 III. Inference from Prof. Maskelyne's examination of the manuscript notes .... 127 IV. The question of identity of the writer of the ink-notes in the Perkins Folio and the writer of the ink-notes in the Bridgewater Folio .... 128 V. The date of the water-mark in the paper of the binding 129 VI. The bearing of the Hamlet collation in Mr. Hamilton's Inquiry on the question of forgery . . 131 VII. Apart from the moral question, ooidd Mr. Collier have written the manuscript notes P . . . 134 IX. What is the value of Mr. Dyce's testimony and that of other critics to the excellence of the manuscript emendations? ..... 135 X. Could Mr. Collier have appropriated them by burning the foHo in the first instance P . . . 136 Chaptee VII. — The Perkins Folio : — philological tests . 141 Test-words and test-phrases . The test-word its appUed to the Ireland Forgeries Other tests of the Ireland Forgeries A test-phrase for the Uranius Forgery . Mr. Singer's test-word _ Mr. Staunton's test-word Mjr. HalliweU's test-word Mr. Dyce's test-word Various other tests . Admirative comments in The Edinburgh and Saturday Keviews Mr. Brae's test-word, assailed by the reviews. The text in which it occurs The Perkins gloss . Mr. E.. G. White's gloss Mr. U. Garnett's gloss Meaning of the Perkins gloss 143 144 145 146 148 J) 93 149 ii )) 150 CONTENTS. ix PAGE. Distinction between three cheers and a cheer . .151 The thiee archaic meanings of cheer , . . 153 The archaic meaning of three cheers . . . ., The Athenaeum commits a blunder . . . 153 Example from Teonc/e's Dioury . . ■ ,, Eeply . . . . . . „ All the remaining instances of three cheers in Teonge's Diary 154 Eemarks on these examples .... 157 Origin of the modern use of cAeer . . . 158 Resume of the facts . . . . • „ The use of huzza . . . . = „ The use of three cheers on land in 1769 . . 159 Campbell's misuse of a cheer .... 160 The article in The Bulletin . . . .161 Letter signed " Looker-on'' in The Times . . „ The Times suppresses the truth . . . 162 The statements of The Bulletin refuted . . 163 Mr. Singer's mistake .... 164 Mr. T. J. Arnold's mistake and awkward explanation . „ Mr. CoUier's mistakes . . . ' . 167 The mistake of the editor of Notes and Queries . . 168 Mr. H. Merivale's mistake . . . ■ „ Chapteb Vni. — The Perkins Folio : — Mr. CoUier's dealings with the Emendations .... 171 No direct charge of forgery brought against IVIr. CoUier . „ Three classes of penciUings in the Perkins Foho . 172 The irresistible inference . . . • » Mr. Collier's evil genius . . . ... Mr. CoUier's denial of the presumed charge of forgery . 173 Verdict on the peneU- writing . . . . 174 Internal evidences tending to inculpate Mr. CoUier . 175 I. "brothers" v. rothers .... 176 II. " infuite comming" v. infinite cunning . . 177 III. " untrimm'd" v. v/ptyrim/nid . . . 180 IV. The stage-direction writing . . . 181 V. " Wonderful sympathy" between Mr. CoUier and the " old corrector" . . . .192 Mr. CoUier's emendations original but not new . 193 Mr. CoUier's emendations original and new . 194 Mr. CoUier's suggestions carried out by Mr. Perkins 196 VI. The shorthand in the Perkins Folio . . 197 CONTENTS. PAGE. Chaptes IX. — THe Perkins Folio : — ^value of th.e Emendations 199 Mr. Collier's claim of originality for the " old corrector " His own oversights partially accounted for The diffictilty of collation How to determine the question of the " old corrector's ' originality Mr.Staunton's table of the manuscript alterations in Hamlet The value of statistics of quantity Conjeotuial experiment on the text of Shatspere Classification of the manuscript alterations General results The system of classification applied to the manuscript alte rations in Hamlet The design of Chapter III. of The ShaJespeare Fahrications The charges of The Literary Gazette and The Saturday Eeview Heply to The Literary Gazette Eeply to The Saturday Eeview The new line in Winter's Tale Mr. Staunton's note The " old corrector's " three blunders in one Mr. Dyce's notes The new line in Coriolanus " WooUen " v. hollen Mr. Dyce's note Monck Mason's note Capell's emendation Mr. Brae's reading . " Degrees " v. diseases " Married " v. mirror' d " Bosome multiplied " v. hisson multitude Mr. Singer's adoption of the Perkins' reading Mr. HalliweU's adoption A. E. B.'s defence of the text Mr. Singer's " fatal objection " answered and obviated Mr. Singer surrenders Mr. HalliweU's caution Mr. Dyce's adoption Mr. Staunton's final decision . 200 201 Si 204 208 209 210 216 217 218 219 221 222 223 227 228 229 230 231 233 234 »J 235 238 239 240 CONTENTS. XI PAGE. Chaptee X.— The Bridgewater Manuscripts . . 241 Mr. Collier was the discoverer and sponsor of the manuscripts „ Table of the manuscripts in the Shatspere Volume . 243 The four palseographical examinations . . . 244 I. The valuation of the shares in the Blackfriars property 246 II. The letter to Sir T. Egerton, signed S. Danyell . 247 in. The Certificate of the Blackfriars Players . . 249 rV. A Heport by two Chief Justices on the right of resi- dents within the precincts of the White and Black Friars to certain exemptions . . . 250 V. The warrant appointing Dabome, Shakspere and others, instructors of the Children of the Hevels . . 252 Mr. HalliweU's opinion on the Dabome warrant . 253 The Letter to Sir Thomas Egerton signed H. S. . 256 Mr. CoUier's replies respecting the H. S. letter . . 258 The statement of account of rewards and payments for entertaining Queen Elizabeth at Harefield signed Arth. Maynwaringe .... 261 Palseographio examinations .... 264 The ink chemically tested . . . ■ >, Identity of the handwritings of the Perkins notes and of four manuscripts .... 265 Chapteb XI. — The Dulwich Manuscripts . . 266 Verses on Edward AUeyn .... 267 The List of Players appended to a letter from the Council to the Lord Mayor . . . .269 Mr. Collier's replies .... 271 Eejoinder to them ..... 272 The letter addressed to Henslow signed " John Marston " 273 The Complaint of certain' inhabitants of the Liberty of Southwark ..... 274 Assessment for the poor of the Liberty of Southwark . 276 The letter to Edward Alleyn from his wife . . 279 , Mr. Collier's falsified version of it . . . 280 Mr. Collier's replies concerning the Letter from Mrs. Alleyn . . . - .282 E-ejoinders to them ..... 284 Mr. Collier's replies continued . . . 286 Further rejoinder . . . . . „ The anecdote not original .... 288 XU CONTENTS. PAGE. Chaptee XII.— The Forged State Paper . . 28a The Petition of the owners and players of the Blaotfriars Theatre to the Privy Council . . ■ „ Pala30graphio examination of it . . . 293 The opinion of five leading palaeographists upon the (Ques- tion of its genuineness .... 294 Mr. Lemon's letter to the editor of the The Athenaeum . 295 Mr. CoUier's reply . . . . .296 Mr. Hardy's remarks .... 297 Mr. Merivale's opinion .... 300 Mr. Hardy's reply to Mr. Merivale . . ■ „ Chaptee XIII. — Supposititious and suspected documents . 303 The Certificate of the Justices of the Peace for the County of Middlesex about the Blackfriars . . 304 The supposititious letter signed " Samuel Danyel " . 307 The supposititious letter signed " W. Balegh " . . 309 The manuscript description of an impersona,tion in a masque 310 The supposititious Blackfriars Petition of 1576 . . 311 The supposititious Blackfriars Petition of 1596 . . „ The supposititious letter from Lord Pembroke . . 314 Chaptee XIV.— The Vintage . . . .315 Hecapitnlation . . . . ■ ,y The compound inference . . . .317 The case of the will of Mr. Jones Panton . . 318 The editor of The Athenaeum draws on his invention . 319 General conclusions on the Controversy . . 320 The editor of The Athenaeum again resorts to misrepre- sentation ..... 323 Mr. CoUier's present position . . . 324 Appendix ...... 327 Mr. CoUier's charges against Sir F. Madden . . „ Sir F. Madden's reply .... 329 The BibUography of the Shakspere Controversy . . 339 I. Books and Pamphlets . . . ■ „ II. Articles in Periodicals .... 344 III. Eeviews in Periodicals . . . 346 Supplemental Notes .... 349 MANUSCEIPTS AND DOCUMENTS TEEATED OF IN THIS WOEK. Those to which an asterisk (*) is prefixed have been examined and ad- judged spurious. Those to which a dagger (f) is prefixed are not to be ound, and are adjudged supposititious. At Devonshire House. *Maiitiscript alterations, corrections, additions, stage-directions, &c., in pencil and ink, contained in an edition of Shakspere, Eolio, 1632, commonly called Tlie Perkins Folio. At Bridgewater House. *Manuscript alterations and corrections in pencil and ink, con- tained in an edition of Shakspere, Folio, 1623, commonly called The Bridgewater Folio. Six manuscript Documents in a folio volume, viz. : *I. A statement of tie value of the shares of Shakespeare and others in the Blaokfriars property, upon avoiding the Play- house, (n. d.) *II. A letter addressed to Sir Thomas Egerton, signed " S. DanyeU." (n. d.) *III. A Memorial of the Blackfriars Players to the Privy CouncU. (Nov. 1589.) *IV. A Eeport by two Chief Justices on the right of citizens within the precinct of the White and Black Friars to ex- emption from certain charges. (Jan. 27th, 1579.) *V. A Warrant appointing Eobert Daborne, William Shake- speare, and others, instructors of the Children of the Eevels to Queen Elizabeth. (Jan. 4th, 1609.) XIV MANUSCRIPTS AND DOCUMENTS. *VI. A letter to Sir Thomas Egerton, signed H. S. (n. d.) " vera copia." *A statement of account of rewards and payments for entertaining ,Queen Elizabeth at Harefield, signed Axth. Maynwaringe. At Dulwich College. *I. Verses on Edward Alleyn. *II. A List of Players appended to a letter from the Council to the Lord Mayor. *III. A letter addressed to Henslow, signed " John Marston." *rV. A Complaint of certain inhabitants of the Liberty of South- wark. *V. An Assessment for the poor of the Liberty of Southwark. VI. A letter to Edward Alleyn from his wife. fA Petition from the Owners and Players of the Blackfriars Thea- tre to the Privy Council, (assigned date 1596). tA Certificate of the Justices of the Peace of the County of Mid- dlesex about the Blackfiriars, (assigned date Nov. 20, 1633). fA letter from Samuel Daniel, the poet. fA letter signed "W. Ealegh." fA manuscript description of an impersonation in a masque. fA Petition from the Inhabitants of the Liberty of the Blackfriars to the Privy Council, (assigned date 1576). fA Petition from the Inhabitants of the Liberty of the Blackfriars to the Privy Council, (assigned date 1596). fA letter from Lord Pembroke, (assigned date August 27th, 1624). Manuscript notes concerning certain peculiarities of Marlow, sup- posed to be in the handwriting of Gabriel Harvey, in a copy of Marlow's Sero and Leander, 1629. LIST OF FACSIMILES. Sheet No. To face page An addition in pencil and ink, and three stage-direc- tions in ink (one being partially and partly erased) from tte play of Hamlet in the Perkins Folio Facing title I. — Mannscript Corrections in pencil and ink from the Bridgewater Polio . . . .24 n. — Manuscript Corrections in ink from the Bridgewater Folio, and Manuscript Corrections in ink from the Perkins Folio . . . .26 III. — Facsimile of Mr. Collier's letter to Mr. Parry . 60 IV. — Manuscript Corrections in pencil and ink from the Perkins Folio .... 112 V. — Manuscript Notes and Corrections from the Perkins Folio . . . . .174 VI. — Inscription on the outside first board of the Perkins Folio: — Extract from the Dramatis Personas of Henry V. in the Perkins FoUo: — ^Extract from a volume of household accounts in the handwriting of Sir Arthur Maynwaringe . . . 262 VII. — Forged Statement of Account of rewards and pay- ments for entertaining Queen Elizabeth at Harefield in 1602, signed Arth. Maynwaringe . . 262 VIII. — I. Forged Statement of the value of the shares of Eichard Burbage, Lawrence Fletcher, WUliam Shakespeare, Heminge and Condell, in the Black- friars property, upon avoiding the Playhouse . 246 IX. — n. Forged letter addressed to Sir Thomas Egerton, and subscribed " S.DanyeU" . . .248 X. — Forged Petition of Thomas Page, Eichard Burbage, John Hemings, Augustine PhUhps, WUUam Shake- speare, WUliam Kempe, William Slye, Nicholas Tooley and others, to the Lords of the Privy Council : — Two manuscript additions in the Perkins Folio : — III. Forged certificate of the Blackfriars Players . . . , .248 XVI LIST OF FACSIMILES. Sheet No. To face pago XI. — IV. Genuine contemporary copy of opinions of two Chief Justices on the right of Citizens within the precinct of the White and Blackfriars, to exemp- tion from certain charges . . • 250 XII. — V. Forged Warrant, appointing Bobert Daborne, William Shakespeare, Nathaniel Field and Edward Eirkham, instructors of the Children of the Eevels to Queen Ehzabeth . . . .252 XIII.— VI. Forged " Copia vera " of a spurious letter without address, attributed by Mr. Collier to Lord Southampton .... 256 XrV. — I. Spurious verses on Edward AHeyn . . 266 XV. — Dedication of a volume of Manuscript Poems of John Marston (in the library at Bridgewater House) in the handwriting of the poet : — HI. Forged letter addreased to Henslow the actor, signed " John Marston" . . . . .272 XVI. — II. List of Players appended to a letter from the Council of the City of London to the Lord Mayor : — rV. Complaint of certain inhabitants of the Liberty ofSouthwark . . . .274 XV 11. — V. Assessment of inhabitants of the Liberty of Southwark . . . . .176 XVIII. — VI. Extract from a letter to Edward Alleyn, from his wife, (being the last eight lines on the first page) 278 ADVERTISEMENT. It has been from no desire unduly to extend this work that I have grafted upon it so many extracts from other books and articles on the same subject. In doing- so my motive has been that in speaking of the writings of others I might ensure, if possible, a faultless accuracy, a point of great importance in a work which is at once critical and controver- sial. Nor have I rested satisfied with mere accuracy in quotation ; but in all other respects I have sedulously endeavoured to give a complete view of the whole Shakspere Controversy, including, as far as my means of knowledge and my ability extend, (1) a narrative of the discovery of each volume or document in question, (2) a faithful description of its appearance and contents, and (3) an impartial discussion of each case in all its bear- ings, paleeographic and critical. I have, accord- ingly, not scrupled to reprint such portions of my own previous pubhcation. The Shakspeare Fabrications, as I found expedient for the completeness of the case against the authenticity and genuineness of the ma- nuscript annotations of the Perkins FoHo. Readers or reviewers who may be disposed to im- pute it as a fault that I have to so great an extent A 2 ADVERTISEMENT. traversed old ground^ are reminded^ that if it be a fault, it is a fault incident to the design of the work, and not to its execution. If, as my publishers be- lieve, a succinct and exact account of the whole question is a desideratum, it can be no fault in such a work that it is thorough-going, leaving no period or feature of the Controversy unrepresented or un- appreciated. In the attempt to be strictly impartial, it is very likely that I have failed. It is true that I am per- sonally a stranger to Mr. Collier, and I have no private interest in common with the staff of the De- partment of Manuscripts of the British Museum, nor have I any connexion with the officers of the Public Hecord Office : yet it may. well be that my love for the works of Shakspere has warped my judgment. I have, however, endeavoured to follow the trail of evidence, and, as far as I know myself, I have not been induced to deviate from the course of impar- tiality which I have prescribed for myself, by the stimulus of personal motives of any kind. That a case like the present, which rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, should affect aU nainds alike, is not to be expected. No evidence of a literary forgery has ever been found " as subtle as Arachne's woof." There has ever been some " orifex," through which a crotchetty, partial, or sceptical mind might escape the necessity of conviction. After the forgeries of Macpherson, Ohatterton, and Ire- land, there remained critics who having committed ADVERTISEMENT. 3 themselves to an opinion in favour of the authenticity or genuineness of the matter to which spuriousness was imputed^ held with consistent tenacity to their original opinion, even after the spuriousness had been estabhshed beyond a rational doubt. In the late case of the forgeries of Constantine Simonides, Sir Thomas PhiUips remained a convert to the genuine- ness of the two Greek manuscripts which he had pur- chased of Simonides (viz. one consisting of the poems of Hesiod, and another of portions of Homer), even after Sir F. Madden had pronounced against them, and Simonides had expiated one of his crimes in the dungeons of Berhn. And quite lately Mr. Mayer of Liverpool shewed his confidence in the integrity of the arch-forger by entrusting him with the imrolling of the papyri of a Greek manuscript which had been brought fi'om Thebes. The result was as might have been anticipated. Simonides evolved from the folds of the papyri parts of three leaves of a papyrus scroll containing the ISth chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew, — with new readings, .of course ! Si- monides' skill in simulating a palimpsest is only too well known, as is also his craft in secreting what he intends to discover. Yet it would surprise no one who is acquainted with the history of literary frauds if Mr. Mayev should remain all his life a believer in the newly evolved papyrus and in the integrity of the famous Greek impostor. The supreme importance of the questions arising out of the Perkins Folio, over all the other cases A 2 4 ADVEETISEMENT. of forg-ery has oblig-ed me to deal with that smg'le case in a far more elaborate manner than with any of the others. It has been my aim to furnish a complete and nearly exhaustive analysis of the Perkins case^ in all its aspects. The reader must not be offended with the apparent unimportance of some of the details. He must remember that the evidence is cumulative^ and that in the chain with which I here present him the smallest hnk aug-ments the weig-ht of the integral mass that goes either to annihilate the authenticity and g'enuineness of the manuscript "notes and emendations, or to identify their sponsor and their fabricator. It would be dising-enuous in me if I did not confess in limine my own hearty conviction of the spurious- ness of aU the annotations, and, with two exceptions, of all the documents which form the subject of the following- examination ; and further, my own opinion that at present Mr. Collier's character has not been vindicated from the presumption of complicity in so numerous and important a series of frauds. But in each case I have stated both sides of the question, and have not been slow to g-ive full weight to such circumstances as have any tendency to reUeve Mr. ColUer from the suspicions which attach to his deal- ings with the matters in dispute. It is not, however, any part of my design to play the part of apologist or advocate for Mr. Colher, though, for matter of that, I have no doubt I could fill even that rSle with far more benefit to him than some of his blind ADVERTISEMENT. 5 adherents and partisans^ who^ to save him from the imputations of dishonesty, have not hesitated to do their best to blacken his reputation as an author, an editor, and a man of sense.' But while I repudiate the task of defending- Mr. Collier, I must assure my readers that, out of the interests of truth, I have no inducement to impute discreditable conduct to one whose good faith I never doubted till the year before last, and whose services to hterature, after deducting- from his works those parts which relate to the alleg-ed fabrications, I cannot but admit to be great and important. With the exception of the facsimile from Hamlet, which faces the title-pag-e, and is the work of Mr. Frederick G. NethercUft, the facsimiles from the Perkins Folio have been approved by a competent judge appointed for that purpose by the Duke of Devonshire, and are published with his Grace's ex- press sanction. My best thanks are hereby presented to the noble Duke for the permission to take and publish numerous and various facsimiles from the Perkins FoKo, and for the means he has taken to ensure their fidelity — to the Earl of EUesmere for unrestrained access to the manuscript treasures of the library at Bridgewater House, and for permission to take and pubhsh nu- merous facsimiles therefrom — to the Governors of Dulwich College for a like permission in respect of 1 I allude in particular to certain writers in " The Edin- burgh Keview " and " The Saturday EeWew." ADVERTISEMENT. the manuscripts in the library of that seminary — and in particular to the Master of the College for the trouble he has taken to afford my facsimilist access to the manuscripts — to Sir Francis Pal- grave for a hke permission in respect of the Peti- tion of the Blackfriars Players to the Privy Council^ which is in the State Paper Office — and to Mr. Francis Charles Parry for the use of his own memoranda of his interviews with Mr. Collier. In order to enable my readers to see at a glance all the English literature relating to the Shak- spere controversj^, I have appended to this work a bibhographical list of separate pubhcations^ and of articles and reviews in periodicals, comprising nearly everything of interest (except mere letters and paragraphs); which has been pubhshed in this country on the subject of the alleged Shakspei^e for- geries. That hst contains also some few American pubHcations. I regret that I am not in possession of the means of making the hst more complete in respect of works pubhshed out of England. C. M. I. Valentines, Ilford. Oct. 10th, 1860. INTEODUCTION. EvEE since July S, 1859, on which day Mr. Warmth of ■J ' J •! the Contro- N. E. S. A. Hamilton's first letter appeared in " The versy. Times/' a literary controversy of more than usual importance has been maintained with an eagerness and a warmth which rarely extend beyond the sphere of private and personal disputes. While men of emi- ^^?f ™i*y • 1 /»■■ -i-iT"! r»i« tiil6 Jl aJ.360- nence m letters are found ranged on both sides oi this graphists. controversy, it is note-worthy that the professional palseographists are not divided on the paleeographic questions ; but, on the contrary, that class of literary men, independently of any community of interest, are unanimous against the genuineness of the disputed documents. Meanwhile the unskilled public loot on in wonder- Cause of the ment at the exhibition of so much animosity about a ^us. mere dry literary question. Some manuscript anno- tations are discovered in two printed books, and many manuscript documents are discovered bearing more or less on the contents of those books. The writing in the printed books and in the manu- scripts is pronounced to be a modem fabrication, i.e. executed in modern times with a fraudulent purpose. It certainly seems at first sight that here there can be little or nothing to stir up personal strife : and 1 will take upon myself to affirm that if no reflections 8 INTRODUCTION. on moral character had been involved in the mere literary question, very few persons would have been found to defend the genuineness either of the anno- tations or of the documents ; and that if controversy had been provoked, the discussion would have been conducted with the most respectable frigidity. The question of the genuineness of old-looking writing, or of the authenticity of the matter so written, could hardly have disturbed the moral equilibrium of palseographists, critics or reviewers. But simply because Mr. Collier was the discoverer of the anno- tations and of aU the manuscripts whose genuine- ness is questioned, and because he has to a great extent identified his reputation with these alleged discoveries, it became difficult to prevent the intru- sion of a personal animus into the literary question : and when Mr. ColUer's connexion with these anno- tations and documents assumed a more serious com- plexion than that of their discoverer, or even their sponsor, the controversy on both sides became leavened with a bitterness which I do not believe to have had any other source than jealousy for the purity of our Elizabethan Literature on the one hand, and jealousy for the good name of Mr. Collier on the other. Indifference From the first promulgation of the notes and of the perio- . ,. i i dical press to emendatious found on the margms of the Perkins Slwlspe^'s Foho down to the present time nothing has moved text. jjjg gQ jnuch as the absolute indifference of nearly all the contributors to the periodical press of Eng- INTRODUCTION. 9 land to the purity of the text of England's greatest author. Judging from the indiscriminate praise which has heen lavished on Mr. Collier's manuscript corrector, hoth while the question of the genuineness of the old writing had received no attempt at a solution, as well as since the pubhcation of a mass of evidence against its genuineness comprised in the works of Mr. Hamilton and myself, it is difficult to beheve that the majority of men of letters cared as much for having the text of Shakspere pure, as for having it intelligible. It is characteristic of the Cause of the Englishman to be impatient alike of doubt, as of nate praise obscurity. He takes up his Shakspere, and reads I^^^**'® some such sentence as the following: — awarded to ^ tte "old corrector." And yet the spacious breadth of this division Admits no orifex for a point, as subtle As Ariachne's broken woof, to enter.* If he thinks at all, he must certainly wonder how a point can be as subtle as a broken woof. How eagerly then does he accept any rehef, that comes even in the shape of a conjecture, such as that of Mr. Keightley,* who would read. And yet the spacious breadth of this division, As subtle as Arachne's broken woof. Admits no orifex for a point to enter. But what if the relief come in the shape of con- jecture, confirmed by a manuscript emendation in a 1 TroUus and Cressida. Act V. sc. 2. ' Notes and Queries, 2nd Series, vol. ii. p. 358. 10 INTKODUCTION. handwriting of the middle of the 17th century? Common sense is satisfied, criticism is disarmed, doubt is removed, and grumbling- is appeased. The Enghshman can now read his Shakspere without a hitch or halt. That is too ^reat a comfort for him to trouble himself about the purity of the text. The neces- But plainly our Englishman is but gulled. How liminary is it that he omitted the precaution of ascertaining, the^M^s! *^ *^^ ^^^* of his skill, whether the writing was of that overiooked (j^^g ^q -vyiucii jts antique form appeared to belong. Specimens of the corrections in the Bridgewater Foho were made pubhc in 1841, and a vast number of the notes and emendations of the Perkins Folio were, as I have said, promidgated in 1852 ; yet, notwithstand- ing the recommendation of Mr. Charles Knight' and that of Mr.Halliwell,* no palseographic examination The interests of the Perkins Folio or of the Bridgewater Folio took jeopardised place till the middle of 1859. Perhaps, on the whole, pro^? el^""' it has been favourable to our literature that the scrutiny was postponed ; for in the meantime the notes and emendations, coming recommended by manuscript authority and, for the most part, endorsed by Mr. ColHer, obtsuned a more favourable hearing than mere conjectures could have done ; and the text of Shakspere received, in consequence, a thorough revision at the hands of verbal critics. But inasmuch as their judgment was, for the most part, adverse not only to the authority but also to the excellence ^ Old Lamps or New, p. lix. * Observations on the Shakspearian Forgeries, &c. p. 8. INTKODUCTION. 11 of the emendations, even when so recommended and endorsed, it may be very satisfactorily concluded that few, if any, of these claimants on their favour and patronage would have enjoyed the most ephemeral reigfn in the text of the great Bard, had they, from the first, stood on their own intrinsic merits only. The documents discovered by Mr.CoUier in Bridsfe- Bridgewater "^ . " House MSS. water House, like the manuscript notes of the two fohos, long escaped palaeographic examiaation. They were made known to the public by him in 1835 and 1836 ', but it was not till 1853 that their genuineness was debated. The reason for the delay in this case was probably similar to that in the former case. Readers of the various biographies of Shakspere, knowing how scanty were the facts which formed the structure of those narratives, naturally devoured with eagerness any further materials, however meagre and unim- portant, and, I may add, however wanting in authen- ticity. The Mew Wacts, 1835, N^ew -Particulars, 1 836, and Further Partioulms, 1839, (of Mr. CoUier alike fed the popular craving, and the amme of that editor was generally regarded as a guarantee of the genuineness of the materials communicated by him. Nor did Mr. HalliweU's two pamphlets' succeed in awakening the suspicions of the pubUc. It was not, in fact, till evidence had been adduced against the genuineness of the manuscript notes of the Perkins ^ Observations on the Shakspearian Forgeries, 18S3, and Curiosities of Modem Shaksperiau Criticism, 1853. 12 INTRODUCTION. Folio that the public took any interest whatever in the other questions. CoUc^'mss' Most of the Dulwich documents which now he under suspicion of forgery were published by Mr. Colher in his Memoirs of Edward Alleyn, 1841, and his History of English, Dramatic Poetry, 1831. And these were not submitted to the scrutiny of palseographie experts till the autumn of 1859, and, as to some, not till the spring- of the present year. Petition of The Petition of the Blacfcfriars Pkyers to the friarsPlayers Privy Council, which is in the State Paper OflSce, Council.'^^ was first pubhshed by Mr. Collier in his History of English Dramatic Poetry, vol. i. pp. 297-300. No palseographie examination of it took place till the spring of the present year. Tie supposi- The remaining documents of which I have sfiven titiousMSS. , °, _ . , ° an account m the penultimate chapter, are not known to have had any existence, except from the statements of Mr. Colher : the fact being that they are not in the depositories where he professes to have found them. COMPLETE VIEW OP THE SHAKSPERE CONTROVERSY. CHAPTEIi I. The Beidqewatee Folio. Till within the last score years, the only pre- Authority sumed authority to which editors of Shakspere's cope^ works had recourse, for the regulation or emendation of the text, was the printed text of the early quarto and folio editions of his plays, and the early im- pressions of his poems and sonnets. The text of a play founded on one of the folios^ or on a quarto, was received as, in a certain sense, authoritative j and an eclectic text, formed on several early editions of the same play, though perhaps looked upon with some suspicion, was still regarded as having some claim to authority. Beyond such quasi-authoritative sources of the text, lay nothing but the region of conjecture. Conjecture, it is true, especially in the case of such a critic as Lewis Theobald, from the singular felicity and discretion with which it was employed, or fi'om the perfect and absolute fitness of a proposed reading to the utmost exigence of the context, was a very frequent source of reading's JB 14 THE BRIDGEWATER FOLIO. which maintained an unquestioned place in the text of Shakspere, and were regarded with as much ad- miration and respect as the most authoritative readings— in a word, they were received as au- thentic. State of the To enable my readers to understand the condition textoftheold . iit o i -, /-oii copies. m which an old editor found the text oi fehakspere, it is necessary that I should call his attention to a few details of only technical interest. Shakspere wrote for the boards, and not for the table. The Globe Theatre was his book ; and his admirers used their ears and eyes conjointly in the perusal of his immortal dramas. He died, and made no sign indicative of a care for the preservation of his works as classics for posterity. Up to and inclusive of the year 1622 fourteen of his plaj's had been published in quarto editions — viz. Hamlet. I. Hen. ly. II. Hen. IV- King Lear. Love's Labour's Lost. Merchant of Venice. Midsummer-night's Dream. Much ado about nothin, Richard II. Richard III. Romeo and Juliet. Titus Andronicus. Troilus and Cressida. OtheUo.' 1 I ought to add that Mr. Collier mentions (Notes and Queries, 1st S. vol. viii. p. 74.) a unique 4to. of The Taming of the Shrew, "which came out some years before the folio 1623." He subsequently wrote, " Only three copies of this 4to. have yet come to light : one, (among Capell's books at Cambridge) THE BRIDGEWATER FOLIO. 15 All these plays were published once or oftener in Shakspere's life-time^ except Othello, which did not appear in print till 1622, i. e. six years after Shaks- pere's death. There were also published in his lifetime six plays, bearing the names of Hen. V., King John (in two parts), The Merry Wives of Windsor, The Taming of a Shrew, and The Contention of the two Souses of York and Lancaster, which last is in general equivalent to Parts II. and III. of Hen. VI. These answer to six of Shakspere's au- thentic plays ; but in fact are different. The old plays of Hen. V. and The Merry Wives of Windsor, appear to be merely early sketches of the authentic has the title page with the imprint of I. Smithwicke 1631 : another (in the British Museum) has only a fragment of that title page, without the imprint; and the third (in the hands of the editor) has no title-page at all, but a memorandum in manu- script at the top of the first page (sign. A. 2), the upper half of which has been cropped away by a careless binder, so that only the lower half of the figures and letters remains ; enough,' however, to enable us to read, as well as the inscription can be made out, " 1607 stayed by the author." The date may be 1609, but the top of the sis, and of the seven or nine has fallen a sacrifice to the shears. What we are probably to understand is, that the publication of the comedy in 1607 or 1609 had been in some way stayed by the intervention of ttie author, on behalf of himself and the company to which he belonged ; and that having in consequence been laid aside for a number of years, some copies of it, remaining in the hands of Smithwicke the Stationer, were issued in 1631, as if it had then been first published."— Collier's "Ed. of Shakespeare, 1858, vol. ii. p. 437. 16 THE BEIDGEWATER FOLIO. plaj^s, like the Hamlet of 1603^ and the Romeo and Juliet of 1597- In the same year, his fellows Hemin^e and Con- dell issued the first folio edition of his plays com- plete, with the exception of Pericles, and llie Two Noble Kinsmen, of considerable parts of which he was unquestionably the author. These plays could not have been excluded on the principle of including' only those of his plays of which he was the un- divided author 5 for the plays of II. Hen. VI. and III. Hen. VI. as well as Hen. VIII. appear in that collection, and in the first two it is certain that Shakspere worked up another man's labours," while in the last it is highly probable that Fletcher worked upon an unfinished play of Shakspere's.^ Of this first folio edition of Shakspere, but one copy is known to be extant bearing- the date 1622 ; all the other known copies bear the date 1623 j and the edition is generally quoted as of the latter year. A second edition of Heminge and Condell's collection appeared in 1632j a third in 1663, and this third edition was re-issued, with the addition of seven spu- rious plays, in 1664. A fourth edition, comprizing these spurious plays, was published in 1685. These are the only early folio editions of Shakspere's plays. The folio 1623 contained (a) the above mentioned 2 See Boswell's Variorum Ed. 1821, vol. ii. p. 315. As to I. Hen. VI. and Titus Andronicus, the probability is that Shaks- pere had no hand in either of thera. 2 See Gentleman's Magazine, August, 1850. THE BRIDQEWATEE FOLIO. 17 fourteen authentic plays of Shakspere, (i3) the six authentic plays corresponding with the six older plays, and (y) sixteen plays which had not heen previously published, in all thirty-six plays. The value of the first folio edition is, in fact, principally due to the circumstance of its being- the earliest known edition of sixteeti authentic plays of Shakspere. Of its value on any other ground, there is a re- Value of the markable difference of opinion. It is one of those questions on which mtics must necessarily differ, pretty much in proportion to their knowledge of the facts of the case. By Mr. Knight, the folio of 1623 was originally regarded as an extremely well printed book for the time it was issued, and a text of unquestionable authenticity. But after the publi- cation of his first Pictorial Edition, he saw how im- possible it was to found a text upon the first folio edition only. Accordingly, in his National Edition, he was necessitated to deviate very considerably from the text of the folio ; and I can only regret that in doing so he should have, not unirequently, omitted to indicate by a foot-note his desertion of the folio reading and his adoption of that of the quarto.* Mr. Collier has pronounced it, with one exception, as well printed as any contemporary work of the kind.* * Lest it should be thought that I overstate the case against Mr. Knight, I beg to refer the reader, for example, to the text of Hamlet, in the National Edition. In the first Act of that plajr he will find ten instances of silent deviation from the folios, and adoption of the quartos. 6 Letter in The Attenseum, March 27th, 1852. 18 THE BBIDGEWATER FOLIO, Professor Craik puts forward the most extravagant pretensions for this edition, and appears to regard it as one of the most accurately printed books of the period.* Mr. Bolton Corney, whose opinion is of more value than that of either of the last named gentlemen, has enacted' that " the text of the plays, errors excepted (!) shall," in aU iutiu'e editions, " be that of 1623, collated with that of such of the plays as had been published in a finished state." Now, without cavilling at the very wide signification of such a phrase as " errors excepted," I can by no means admit the canon in question : for this reason j that the execution of the edition of 1623 does not answer to the professions of Heminge and Condell. The entire text, of the plays is certainly not derived, as, fi-om their preface, they would lead their readers to believe, from any manuscripts of Shakspere's; nor indeed from any playhouse copies. The text of those plays which "had been published in a finished state," before 1623, i?, in the folio edition of that date, generally based upon the early quartos. This is especially observable in the First and Second Parts of Henry IV., Lovers Labour's Lost, Mer- chant of Venice, Midsummer NigMs Dream, Much ado about nothing, JRiclmrd IL, Titus Andronicus, and Troilusand Oressida. In each of these plays ^' there is," says the accurate, but clumsy Capell, " an almost strict conformity between the two im- * The English of Shakspere. '' Notes and Queries, 1st S. vol. vi. p. 2. THE BRIDGEWATER POLIO. 19 pressions : some additions there are in the second, and some omissions; but the faults and errors of __^ the quartos are all preserved in the folio; and others added to them." This fact excludes the supposition that the editors — of the folio had a manuscript authority for their text of these nine plays, or in fact any more trustworthy copies of them to print from, than the quartos which have come down to us. These remarks are true in a less degree of all the other ^ve plays which we possess in early quarto editions. However, the facts, that the editors of 1623 printed additions to the quarto texts, and omitted passages from their folio which are contained in the quartos, are of great in- terest and importance for all future editors : hut that no editor can be bound by the " text of the plays, errors excepted," as they are given in the folio of 1623, is a negative principle which does not admit of a rational doubt. As to the readings which are first found in the second, third, or fourth folio, it is self-evident that they can hardly carry more weight than the most recent conjectural emendations.* The conclusion from these premises is inevitably Province of ,^^^ this, that we possess no authoritative text at all } *'°"-'®'' '"®* '^ and, of course, the door is open to legitimate conjec- ture as to the readings to be adopted, wherever the defective state of the text of the quartos or first folio renders emendation expedient. Let it be understood 8 See Mr. Halliwell's tract on " Who smothers her with painting," 1852, pp. 6-8, where this point is ably discussed. 20 THE BRIDGEWATER FOLIO. that a text shall be held to he defective^ so long as the sense, if any, which it conveys is not such as it is probable a man like Shakspere would have put into the mouth of the speaker on the particular occa- sion in question. Hie labor, hoc opus ! It will thus be evident to my readers that a very wide latitude is allowed to conjecture ; in fact that nothing should be held to disqualify conjecture, but an ignorance in the conjecturer of the peculiar manners and customs, and the special idioms of the dramatic language of Shaksg^re's day. However widely the opinions of competent and well-informed critics may differ as to what is to be taken as such a defective state of the text as to justify emendation, it is unfortunately true that in an enor- mous number of instances, the text of Shakspere, whether we find it in the quartos or the folio, is in such an abominably corrupt state, that emendation is a necessity, and must be acknowledged to be so even by those who regard it as an evil, and would never allow it where any kind of sense can be tor- tured out of the original words. Innumerable are the phrases out of which no possible sense can be tor- tured, by any kind of exegetical manoeuvre. Every editor has his own favourite nostrums for many of these : but some cases are so hopeless, that it is an almost universal custom for editors to print the nonsense of the original text,, in sheer despair of superseding it by any plausible emendations. Of these almost hopeless cruces the number does not THE BRIDGEWATEB FOLIO. 21 exceed twenty-five. In some the difficulty lies in the construction of the sentence ; in others, in the use of words which have not, and probably never had, any meaning". But these form but a drop in the " mul- titudinous seas" of misprints with which the text of quartos and folios are ahke overwhelmed. In fact, it is not going too far to affirm the very reverse of Professor Craik's dictum, and aver that the first foHo edition of Shakspere is the worse printed work, (_^ of any pretensions to permanent interest, dramatic or otherwise, that the first half of the seventeenth century produced. Accordingly, the editors and conjectural critics of Extremes of the two editions cum notis variorum, not unnatur- ^' ally fell into the extreme of loose conjecture ; they were more anxious to reform, than to understand : and the editions of our own day afford abundant evidence of a reaction upon that laxness of criticism, and almost universally err in the extreme of a too close adherence to the old copies. Against this blind deference to the printed authorities, the following protest of Mr. W- N. Lettsom cannot be too often repeated : — " The earlier editors were no doubt far too ready to tamper with the original text ; some of their successors have run into the other extreme ; they perversely maintain the most ridicu- lous blunders of the old copies, and almost seem disposed to place conjectural criticism on a level with hap-hazard guess work. "What is called conjecture, however, is neither more nor less than a particular application of circumstantial evidence, and if we receive such evidence when property or life is at stake. 22 THE BRIDGEWATEE FOLIO. surely we sTiould not reject it when we are sitting in judgment merely on words or syllables. At any rate, we should be sadly disappointed if we expected to escape the hazards of conjecture by a servile adherence to old copies. Scholars and critics are not the only persons who tamper with texts. Correctors, transcribers, and compositors have been much too ready to alter whatever they were unable to understand ; their stupid sophistications have too often overlaid the genuine readings, and have been blindly received, as of paramount authority, by the unsuspecting simplicity of over-cautious commentators. It would be well if the latter stopped here ; unfortunately they are not satisfied with retaining corruptions ; they must needs attempt to defend and explain them. In consequence they get into a bad habit of wresting and straining language, and finally become thorough proficients in the bewildering art of forcing any sense out of any words. In their desperate efibrts to extract sense from nonsense, the poet himself has been too often sacrificed to the printer, and has thus gained a character for obscurity to a degree far beyond his deserts."' y Epoch of In 1841 was published Mr. Collier's " Reasons for rityi *^ ** a New Edition of Shakespeare's Works, containing" notices of the defects of former impressions and point- ing out the lately acquired means of illustrating' the plays, poems, and biography of the poet." This tract forms an epoch in Shaksperian criticism. It was here that Mr. ColUer first appealed to manu- script autJiority for the regulation and emendation of the text of Shakspere. We are here first introduced to a folio with manuscript corrections, viz. the first folio of the late Lord EUesmere, (then Lord Francis Egerton.) This copy of the 1623 edition is perhaps ® Shakspeare's Versification, by W. Sidney Walker. Pre- face, p. xiv. THE BBIDGEWATER FOLIO. 23 the finest extant. Its general condition is superior, and its margins larger than those of any other known copy ; in fact it is in every respect in the' same condi- tion in which it was when it came from the printers in 1623 into the hands of Lord Chancellor Egerton, save only that a few deficient leaves have been sup- plied from an inferior copy," and that its margins have some manuscript notes. The copy was known l^ to bibliographers long before Mr. Collier had access to the Bridgewater Library. But no manuscript \ / corrections had previously been seen upon its mar- J gins. Mr. CoUier, to whom Lord F. Egerton had lent the volume, announces the discovery of these corrections in the following words : — " certain corrections, in the margin of the printed portion of the folio, are probably as old as the reign of Charles I. Whether they were merely conjectural, or were made from original manuscripts of the plays, to which the individual might have had access, it is not perhaps possible to ascertain. * * * # these verbal, and sometimes literal, annotations are only found in a few of the plays in the commencement of the volume ; and from what follows, it will be a matter of deep regret that the .corrector of the text carried his labours no farther."^^ Mr. Collier then proceeds to give Jive examples of these emendations. As the whole of the corrections in the volume number only thirty-two, with pencil suggestions for two others^ I wiU give them all^ pre- mising that they will, most of them, be found in the notes to Mr. Collier's edition, 1841-1844. '° Mr. CoUier says " supplied by manuscript." Where is this manuscript now ? *' Beasons, 2nd edition, p. 14. 24 THE BMDGEWATER FOLIO. a IP OS* CO T^ i S ;3^ i§ »-■ 2 faD ?? QJ 't^ fe SX.° am^m § cs>e-S ;>.^ t»M > 1 2< "t «« (fj j^ m ,;«-■«■-• 5^ « m «■ '^ «■ m «• 0^ 5j ri "^ "^ « m ^ ^ °"°"'egg"^ggggggS^ggggg :a:a:a > I OQ to O O ■S ■** -*3 «8 - - I 3 53 05 -4-3 is 12^ 'J o t^ gS d d i ^ i-T IN CT Sj 0» ci CT (N i-i i-i .-H ^ ^-, ^ v.^ --. — . . . • . r-. <^» <^ . , . ^ ^ t-OOOOOOOOOSO>OiC . . . ^ [h e. (£, fi, p,'*^ PhPhPhI^PhPhPkPhP^P-j Eg o -^ o ? 3 S 4' o s- V rt •^ ^ ? a « ^ c u C o u u C o o c t d ^ ^ o >; -S 5^ O f u 3 © 1 11 ^1 o •X3 3 O >-. U 3 o -a u s « c 8 r u -a O u M u o u 3' rj *-• o *-* 3 E - § I. tec r « 1 o ^ < 13 C u 4^1 ^^ '^ THE BRIDGE WATER FOLIO. 25 In the table given by Mr. Hamilton {Inquiry, 1850, pp. 74 and 76) entitled, " Manuscript Correc- tions in the Bridgewater Folio, 1633," there are only eighteen of those corrections, fourteen being omitted.'' In July, 1859, 1 called on Sir F. Madden, at the Paifeogra; British Museum, for the express purpose of urging tion o^'tlT him to obtain the loan of the Bridgewater Folio, in ^^- '"'*^'- order to submit it to a palseographic scrutiny. I need not detail the purport of our conversation : suf- fice it to say, that by one of those curious coinci- dences, which happen so often, and yet always strike one as so very unlikely, as I left the Museum Lord EUesmere, accompanied by Dr. Kingsley, entered it, carrying with him the very folio in question, >* Mr. Collier has not been slow to avail himself of this cir- cumstance, in his teply to Mr. Hamilton's charges against him of publishing scarcely half the emendations of the Perkins Folio, in his so-called " List of every Manuscript Note and Emenda- tion in Mr. Collier's copy of Shakespeare's "Works, folio. 1632." But Mr. Collier, in retaliating on his opponent, charitably re- duces the number of Mr. Hamilton's omissions to two. {Reply, p. 23, note.) The fact is, as stated by Mr. Collier, that " few- things are more difficult than to be utterly faultless in such extracts." But how that admission can help Mr. Collier's case, I do not perceive, since he tells us that he never dreamed at any time of including many of the corrections : yet he calls his List of 1856, " A List of every Manuscript Kote and Emendation, &e." and challenges his readers to point out any siu of omission in his " Notes and Emendations," 1853, except two corrections which he specifies. (Preface to " Seven Lectures of Coleridge," &c. 1S5G, p. 79.) 26 THE BRIBGEWATEK FOLIO. which he had brought with the view of ehciting- Sir F. Madden's opinion as to the genmneness of the writing in which the corrections are made. Accordingly the writing had the benefit of a palaeo- graphic scrutiny sur le coup, by Sir F. Madden and Mr. Hamilton, and that same morning it was dis- covered that in four cases of correction, viz. this, a, handled, and as, {vide foregoing table) pencil marks were more or less traceable," to an extent which shewed that each of these emendations had been written in pencil, before they were inked in. Of course the inference is that others of the corrections had been inserted on a like principle. Furthermore, Sir F. Madden and Mr. Hamilton came to the conclu- sion that the ink-'WTiting was not in a genuine, but a simulated character, and belonged, not to the time of the Commonwealth, but to the 19th century. These circumstances will have greater significance as we advance in our examination of the general question. At present I simply call attention to them, in order to preserve the order of chronology in the history of each suspected document. 13 Hamilton's Inquiry, pp. 72 — 75. eS ^ ^ ^ ft Si I ■^^ t .f N ^ 'S ^ V 2 o -T3 < rS. tS L^ .1^ 3 •X) o 2 « m Mr. Parry denies having used such words as " this very copy," &c. ITS SUPPOSITITIOUS PEDIGREE. 67 Those particulars were, as kindly as promptly, communicated to me by Mr. Moore, with whom I was not personally ac- quainted, — and he urged Mr. Parry also to write to me on the subject ; but that gentleman was prevented from doing so by a serious fall, which confined him to his bed. Being, of course, much interested in the question, I soon afterwards took an opportunity of introducing myself to Mr. Moore ; who, satisfied that Mr. Parry had formerly been the proprietor of my copy of the folio, 1632, advised me to call upon that gentleman at his house, HUl Eoad, St. John's "Wood, — assuring me that he would be glad to give me all the information in his power. I was, I think, the first person whom Mr. Parry saw after his accident, — and in a long interview he repeated to me the statements he had previously made to Mr. Moore, respecting the gift of Mr. Gray, half a century ago, and his conviction of the identity of the volume.^ He could not prove the fact, but he had always understood and believed [see note ' p. 54], that Mr. Gray had become possessed of it on the dispersion of the library of the Perkins's family at TJfton Court,^ and that it had been in hia hands some years^" before the conclusion of the last century. Mr. Parry had himself had the curiosity to visit TJfton Court about 1803 or 1804; when a Boman Catholic Priest, not less than eighty years old, shewed him the library, and the then empty shelves, from which the books had been removed. On referring subsequently to the ' Magna Britannia' of Lysons, under the head of " Berkshire," I found various parti- culars regarding the Perkins family at TJfton Court, between 8 This is certainly correct. Mr. Parry did believe in the identity of the volume, judging solely from the facsimile which Mr. Moore had shevpn him ! * Mr. Parry now believes that this library had been dispersed before Mr. Gray was born. 10 Mr. Parry denies having used the expression " some years." 68 THE PERKINS FOLIO: 1635 and 1738; but I did not meet ■with any mention of Thomas Perkins, whose name, it will be remembered, is on the cover of the folio, 1632, in question. The name of the dis- tinguished actor of the reigns of James the Pirst and Charles the rirst, was Richard Perkins ; and Ashmole's Collections, according to Lysons, speak of a Eichard Perkins as the hus- band of Lady Mervin, of Ufton Court. It is just possible that this Eichard Perkins was the actor ; for although the ' Historia Histrionica' tells us that he was buried at Clerken- well, that authority is by no means final : just before it notices the death of Perkins, it speaks of Lowin as having expired in great poverty at Brentford, when we know that this " player " (so designated in the register) was buried at St. Clement Danes, Strand, on the 24th of August 1653. However, it ia a mere speculation that the Eichard Perkins who married Lady Mervin may have been the actor, — ^and I am not yet in possession of any dates or other circumstances to guide me. Having put in writing the particulars with which Mr. Parry had so unreservedly favoured me, I took the liberty of forwarding them to Mr. Moore, — and he returned the manu- script with his full approbation as regarded what had originally passed between himself and Mr. Parry. After it was in type, I again waited upon Mr. Parry, only three days ago, in order that I might read the proof to him and introduce such addi- tions and corrections as he wished to be made. They were few, but not unimportant ; and among them was the fact (con- firming the probability that Mr. Gray had obtained this copy of the folio, 1632, from the Perkins library) that Mr. Gray resided at Newbury, not far from TJfton Court, — a circum- stance which Mr. Parry had previously omitted. The con- necting link between the book and this library is, therefore not complete — and we have stUl to ascertain, if we can, who was Thomas Perkins, and by whom the notes and emendations were introduced into the folio 1632. A Mr. Francis Perkins died at Ufton Court ia 1635, — and he may have been the first purchaser, and owner, of this second folio of the works of ITS SUPPOSITITIOUS PEDIGREE. 69 Shakespeare. At all events, however, it is certain that this very volume was for many years in the possession of Mr. Parry (how he lost it he knows not), — who obtained it from his connexion, Mr. G-eorge Gray, of Newbury. Mr. Parry was well acquainted with the fact that various leaves were wanting ; and he so perfectly recollects its state and condition, the frequent erasures of passages, as well as the handwriting of the numerous marginal and other corrections, that when I asked him, just before I wished him good morning, whether he had any doubt on the point of his previous ownership, he answered me most emphatically in these words — " I have no more doubt about it, than that you are sitting there." J. PaYITE COLIIEE. Maidenhead, May 28. P.S. I ought not to omit the expression of my warmest acknowledgments to both Mr. Moore and Mr. Parry, for the zealous and ready assistance which they have afforded me. I hope that if any of the readers of the Athenmum are in pos- session of information that may tend to the further elucidation of the subject, they will communicate it with equal alacrity. Since writing what precedes, I am informed by a letter from a friend, who has just made a search at the Heralds' College, that in the pedigree of the family of Perkins of TJfton Court several members are named Thomas, especially in the earlier dates, — but that latterly Francis was the prevailing name. Eichard Perkins, who married Lady Mervin, as a younger son, is not mentioned." This communication^ it will be observed, records only two visits to Mr. Parry, one of which occurred immediately after his accident ; and the other sub- sequently, when Mr. ColHer read to him the proof of the Preface to the second edition of Notes and Emendations. It has excited universal admiration, Mr. Collier's • 1 • T 1 -» jt strange as well it might, that on neither occasion did Mr. omission. 60 THE PERKINS FOLIO: Preface to -Notes and Emenda- tions. Collier take with him the corrected folio, 1632. If Mr. Collier's bona fides is to be defended, we must presume that the identification of the volume by Mr. Parry was the very thing Mr. Collier wanted to establish. On that identification depended the whole antiquarian fabric that he had been raising ; if the Perkins FoHo, and Mr. Parry's foHo were two distinct books, neither Mr. Parry, nor Mr. Gray, nor Ufton Court hbrary, nor the Perkins's of Ufton Court, had anything to do with Mr. Collier's book. Now the identification could only be esta- blished by one means— viz., the production of the book to Mr. Parry. Yet, knowing all this, Mr. Colher twice leaves his house, where the Perkins Foho is lying on its shelf, and pays two visits to Mr. Parry, for no other conceivable purpose than to identify the volume, yet omits to take it with him. At Maidenhead is the folio ; at St. John's Wood are Mr. Collier and Mr. Parry face to face ; and Mr. Parry who has never seen the book says, " I have no more doubt [that your corrected folio was once mine] than that you are sitting there ;" and Mr. Col- lier says '' Good morning," and returns to Maiden- head under the strange delusion that Mr. Parry has identified the volume, and forthwith proceeds to publish the second edition of his Notes and Emen- dations, with a Preface, from which the following is an extract : — " John Carrick Moore, Esq., of Hyde Park Gate, Kensing- ton * * , was kind enough to address a note to me, in which he stated that a friend of his, a gentleman of the name f,rr x,„7//f r^ J/'Ch///^rs Le/./i^- /r jVI*^ jPcittv o!,p,.t X9ni. /^Ct,.^ ^/f^-*^ >C>:Q> ^a. ^=*^^^ -^-a::^Xl-_-' /■c «f«,* » fi'f' /"^ yti^o^^ ^,-^^fr^ >^«-..vt-^i-*_-._ ^ ^ i^:o. z^....^^,.^ ,^^^^ .=...,^_^? -^1.^-*^ A/^C_ >w^^:^^ .....^^ :;^^^ ^C.^ ''^ f Ck^^^L./\^ 2^ ^^ ^^ ITS SUPPOSITITIOUS PEDIGREE. 01 of Parry, had been at one time in possession of the very folio upon which T founded my recent volume of " Notes and Emen- dations " — that Mr. Parry had been well acquainted with the fact that its margins were filled throughout by manuscript notes, and that he accurately remembered the hand-writing in which they were made. On being shown the fac-simile, which accom- panied my first edition, and which is repeated in the present, he declared his instant conviction that it had been copied from what had once been his folio, 1632. How or precisely when it escaped from his custody he knew not, but the description of it in my "Introduction" exactly corresponded with his re- coUection.'i I lost no time in thanking Mr. Moore for these tidings, and in writing to Mx. Parry for all the particulars vidthin his know- ledge." Unfortunately the latter gentleman, just before he re- ceived my note, had met with a serious injury," which confined Mm to his bed, so that he was unable to send me any reply. Tor about ten days I remained in suspense, but at last I de- termined to wait upon Mr. Moore to inquire whether he was aware of any reason why I had not received an answer from Mr. PaiTy. He accounted for the silence of that gentleman on the ground of his recent accident ; and as Mr. Moore was con- fident that Mr. Parry was correct in the conclusion that my folio 1632, had formerly belonged to him, he advised me to call upon him, being sure that he would be glad to satisfy me upon every point. I accordingly hastened to St John's Wood, and had the pleasure of an interview with Mr. Parry, who, with- out the slightest reserve, gave me such an account of the book as made it certain that it was the same which, some fifty years ago, had been presented to him by a connexion of his family, ^' This is denied by Mr. Parry. " A feesimile of this letter is given on sheet III. " This was an injury to the knee by a fall which most omi- nously took place on the 23rd April, (1853). Mr. Collier after- wards (Eeply, p. 16) calls this "serious" accident, a •' slight" one. E 63 THE PERKINS FOLIO : Mr. George Gray. Mr. Parry described both the exterior [see note *, p. 56] and interior of the volume, with its innumer- able corrections and its missing leaves, with so much minute- ness that no room was left for doubt. On the question from whence Mr. Gray, who resided at New- bury, had procured the boot, Mr. Parry was not so clear and positive : he was not in a condition to state any distinct evi- dence to show out of what library it had come ; but he had always understood and believed that it had been obtained, with some other old works (to the collection of which Mr. Gray was partial), [see note *, p. 54] from TJfton Court, Berkshire ; [see note ^, p. 54] formerly, and for many years before the dis- persion of the library, the residence of a ILoman Catholic family of the name of Perkins, one member of which, Prancis Perkins, who died in 1736, was the husband of Arabella Permor, the heroine of " The Bape of the Lock." This information has been communicated to me so recently, that I have not yet been able to ascertain at what date, and in what way the books at Ufton Court were disposed of. Mr. Parry is strongly of opinion that Mr. Gray became the owner of this copy of the folio, 1632, considerably'* before the end of the last century ; and Mr. Parry was himself at Ufton Court about fifty years since, when a Soman Catholic clergyman, eighty years of age, who had remembered the books there all his life,'* shewed him the then empty shelves upon which they had been placed in the library. A Mr. Prancis Perkins died at TJfton Court three years after the publication of the folio, 1632 ; and if Mr. Parry's belief be correct, that the copy which Mr. Gray gave to him had once been deposited there, it is not impossible that Prancis Per- kins was the first purchaser of it. If so, we might be led to the inference, that either he, or one of his immediate descend- ants was the writer of the emendations ; but, as has been men- 1* Mr. Parry repudiates both the " considerably," and the « all his life." ITS SUPPOSITITIOUS PEDIGREE. 63 tioned elsewhere, the present rough calf binding was not the original coat of the volume ; and, as far as my imperfect re- searches have yet gone, I do not find any Thomas Perkins recorded as of Ufton Court. The Christian name of the great actor of the reign of Charles I. was Eichard ; and a Richard Perkins, called Esquire in Ash- mole's Collections, at a date not stated, married Lady Mervin, a benefactress of that parish. Why should we deem it impos- sible that Eichard Perkins, having attained eminence on the stage, subsequently married a lady of title and property ? How- ever, this and other points, dependent chiefly upon dates, re- main to be investigated, and upon any of them I shall be most thankful for information. The only facts that I am yet able to establish are, that my folio, 1632, with its elaborate corrections, about half a century since came into the possession of Mr. Parry from Mr. George Gray, who, it is possible, obtained it ffom TJfton Court (about eight miles from his residence), where it is unquestionable that at an early date there was a library, likely to have contained such a book, which library was afterwards dispersed. The name of " Tho. Perkins" on the cover is a strong confirmation of the opinion, that it once formed part of that library ;^^ and as to the identity of the volume, and hand-writing of the notes, Mr. Parry feels absolutely certain." I have now ^iven at length Mr. Collier's two pub- General re- T11 •/•!• •• iPT marks on lished narratives oi nis excursion in search oi a pedi- Mr. Collier's gree for his folio. I say of these, as I said of his '^^^**^^®*- two pubUshed narratives of the purchase of the folio, '5 This is an amusing example of a vicious circle. Mr. Parry assuming his folio to be that at Maidenhead, learns that the latter has the name of " Perkins" on it, and thence suggests that his folio may have come from Uftbn Court the seat of the Per- kins ; and the fact that the one at Maidenhead has that name, is, says Mr. Collier, a strong confirmation of Mr. Parry's suggestion. E 2 04 THE PERKINS FOLTO : and discovery of the manuscript corrections, that they are uniform and consistent, and contain only such discrepancies as are incident to erring' human nature when teUing- the same story twice. Look- ing* at these narratives out of connexion with subse- quent events, I see nothing* in them to excite suspi- cion of the truthfiilness of their author ; but I see much to excite the gravest doubt as to the accuracy of the statements, and abundant evidence to shew that the historical explorer has lost himself in the antiquarian dreamer. When I know that a man of short sio-ht has ascended a mountain in order to sketch the surrounding' scenery, and yet has not taken his spectacles with him, I should be astonished if I found that he had actually made the sketch with as much minuteness as if he had taken his glasses with him : but I should be ten-fold more astonished Lf he treated his sketch as authentic; and however great mig'ht be my respect for his virtues,! am sure I should not receive his sketch as authentic, thoug-h he made an afl&davit of its truth. Similarly, I must refuse to accept Mr. Collier's conclusions regarding the pedi- gree of his foHo, when I find that those conclusions are dependent on an identification which Mr. Col- lier had the means of substantiating or of disproving-^ and which yet he did not take the trouble to employ 16 '^ The only explanations vouchsafed by Mr. Collier of this strange omission, are that he " was in haste to get [his] Pre- face to the printer," (Eeply, p. 16) and that "owing to the late ITS SUPPOSITITIOUS PEDIGREE. 65 Having- weighed dispassionately Mr. Collier's se- veral narratives^ and also Mr. Parry's most valuable evidence on the questions involved, I can only come to the conclusion that Mr. ColHer's wish had been all along the father of his facts, and that on Mr. Parry's shoulders must rest a share of the blame, for having, through carelessness, incautiousness, and want of precision, done his best to put an F.S.A. on the scent of a mare's-nest. Most providential is it that " Mr. Parry has not gone the way of the old bibliopole,"" Mr. Rodd ; and much to Mr. Parry^s credit is it that, unlike Dr. Wellesley, he does not refuse to be cross-examined. Having- thus given Mr. Collier's version of his^^^*i^^,^ • •-»«- ^ T -n • T./r -r. valuesofMr. two visits to Mr, Parry, I will now give Mr. Parrjrg Collier's and version of those events. I am far from wishing to testimo^ ^ assume that Mr. Collier's memory is weak and un- date at which I had heard of hia [Mr. Parly's] recognition of the volume by its notes, and to a slight (!) accident which had befallen him, I was not able to exhibit to him the folio itself, &c." (The Athenaeum, Feb. 18, 1860.) One does not very clearly see how Mr. Collier would have been delayed by bringing the folio with him from Maidenhead in the first instance ; nor how Mr. Parry's accident, which did not prevent Mr. Collier visiting him, and discussing the folios with him, would have prevented him looking at the folio itself. To say the least, Mr. Collier's conduct was not that of a man desirous of ascertaining whether his folio had ever belonged to Mr. Parry, but rather that of a man anxious to give his folio a pedigree which, he knew, was not likely to stand the simple test of identification. '7 The Saturday Eeview for July 23rd, 1859. 66 THE PERKINS POLIO: trustworthy, and that Mr. Parry's is retentive and faithful. But I cannot but think it probable, that Mr. Collier's judgment as to what passed at those interviews was more likely to be warped by his in- terest in the circumstances surrounding- his corrected foKo, than that of Mr. Parry was by any of the in- cidents connected with his lost book. Mr. Collier was confessedly anxious to find a pedigree for his folio, if for no other reason, to obviate the risk of incurring the suspicion of having fabricated the manuscript notes himself. He would thus naturally catch at any hint, however vague or indefinite, that could be turned to the account of his foHo. Mr. Parry, on the other hand, could have had no conceiv- able inducement for heightening the colour of his story, or for drawing on his imagination to supply the defects of his memory. At the same time I can readily believe that to save trouble he may have allowed Mr. Collier to draw inferences from what was actually communicated to him, which may have put Mr. Collier on a false scent, and that thus Mr. Parry's silence may have operated as a confirmation of Mr. Collier's prepossessions. Mr. Parry's Mr. Parry's version, which I take from his own manuscript, is to the following effect. Some years before Mr. Parry first saw Mr. Collier, in the course of pruning some trees in his garden, he cut a branch of hoUy, and a shoot of barberry. Thinking they would make good walking sticks, he put them aside to dry. narrative. ITS SUPPOSITITIOUS PEDIGREE. 67 In the month of April, 1853, being at the house of the father of Mr. John Oarrick Moore, (No. 9, Clarg-es Street,) Miss Moore shewed him the first edi- tion of Mr. CoUier's Notes and Emendations, with the facsimile of part of a pag-e of Hen. VI. Mr. Parry- immediately remarked that the facsimile in question M'as taken from a folio edition of Shakspere that was once his. The Moores wished him to write to Mr. Colher about it ; but he dechned doing- so to avoid trouble, but said he had no objection for Mr. John Carrick Moore to write to Mr. Collier on the subject, which he understands he did on the 25th of that month. Some time before, happening to see the sticks to which allusion has been made, it occurred to him to trim and varnish them. He completed this labour on the 22nd April ; and on the follow- ing day he fell and severely hurt his knee. .At the beginnmg of the month of May, he re- ceived a visit from Mr. Collier in his bed-room. Mr. Collier had no book with him. In reply to Mr. CoUier's questions, Mr. Parry gave him, to the best of his memory, an account of the interior of his lost folio. He did not speak of this foho as of any particular date. Mr. Colher did not ask him any question as to the exterior of the book, nor did Mr. Parry volunteer any statement about it ; but, had allusion been made to it, his memory would have served him to tell Mr. Colher that the binding of his lost folio was darh, clean, and shiny. Of the inside he could not have spoken with as much precision as 68 THE PERKINS FOLIO : of the outside, as he does not recollect ever havmg read a page of it. He told Mr. Collier, that he be- lieved the facsimile which Miss Moore had shewn him,'^ was from his lost foUo ; and that the foHo in Mr. Collier's possession must be that he had lost. He inferred this from the facsimile only ; and not dreaming- that there was more than one annotated folio Shakspere in the world, he jumped to the conclu- sion that his folio and Mr. Collier's were identical. He fiirther told Mr. Collier that his lost folio had been given him by a relative named Georg'e Gray ; that he did not positively know where Mr. Gray had obtained it ; but, as Mr. Collier had informed him that the folio at Maidenhead had on it the name of Thomas Perkins, he thought it not unlikely that his relative might have got his folio from the library at Ufton Court, the seat of the Perkins's j he added that Mr. Gray must have become the o'WTier of the foUo before the end of the last century j and that it was thirty or forty years since it had been in his (Mr. Parry's) possession. On the 25th May, Mr. Collier paid him a second visit, on this occasion bringing with him the proof of the Preface to the second edition of Notes and Emendations. Mr. Parry did not except, as he '8 Mr. Parry and Mr. Collier are at issue too, on the question, whether Mr. Collier ever shewed Mr. Parry a facsimile. I be- lieve Mr. Parry's memory is, as Mr. Collier says, at fault here. (Eeply, p. 17.) ITS SUPPOSITITIOUS PEDIGREE. 69 might have done^ to some of the statements in it : foi* being- still under the impression that Mr. Collier had the folio which he (Mr. Parry) had lost, he did not think it material to be precise in the details of his conversation with Mr. Collier on his first visit. Mr. Collier's first narrative of his third interview Mr. Collier's with Mr. Parry is given in his letter to " The Times/' his street in- of July 20th, 1859. After cutting down his two Mrlplr^.*'' visits to Mr. Parry, at the house of the latter gentle- man, to one, Mr. Collier continues thus : — " Very soon afterwards [i.e. after the first visit to Mr. Parry at his house], for greater satisfaction, I brought the corrected folio of 1632 from Maidenhead to London, and took it to Stv John's-wood, but I failed to meet with Mr. Parry at home. I therefore paid a third visit to that gentleman, again carrying the book with me. I met him coming from his house, and I informed him that I had the corrected folio of 1632 under my arm, and that I was sorry he could not then examine it, as I wished. He replied — " If you will let me see it now, I shall be able to state at once whether it was ever my book." I therefore shewed it to him on the spot, and, after looking at it in several places, he gave it back to me with these words : — '' That was my book, it is the same, but it has been much ill-used since it was in my possession." Mr. Collier's second narrative of this third inter- view is given with still greater detail in his Reply, p. 16-17. It is necessary to premise that Mr. Hamilton, in his Inquiry, p. 63, states that " on the occasion alluded to he [Mr. Parry] was, in consequence of an accident, halting along the road on two crutches, the management of which occupied both his hands, and must cer- tainly have totally prevented his handlbg a folio volume." 70 THE PERKINS FOLIO : Mr. Collier replies thus : — " I was in haste to get my Preface to the printer, and I did not, on that occasion, carry the volume itself to St. John's "Wood with me ; but I afterwards did so, and met Mr. Parry a short distance from his house, walking lame, and aided by a stick. Mr. Parry has since said he was " using sticTcs ,•" but this is a slight mistake, which Mr. Hamilton has, possibly only by error, exaggerated into crutches, — a word employed by no- body. Mr. Parry was walking with a stick ; and after express- ing my regret at his recent accident," and stating that I had the Perkins folio under my arm, I said that, under the circum- stances, I could not think of asking him to return home in order to examine it : he replied, " If you will let me see it now, I shall be able to state at once, whether it was ever my book." I therefore produced it to him on the spot, and held his stick while he looked at the book in several places, including the cover : he then returned it to me with these words, " That was my book ; it is the same, but it has been much ill-used since it was in my possession." I then gave him back his stick, and thanking him for his most satisfactory assurance, I wished him good morning. Very soon after reaching home, that is to say, within a day or two, it occurred to me that I ought to record Mr. Parry's expressions, and I did so with a pencil at the foot of page iv. of my Preface to the second edition of Notes and Emendations, in these words, which, it wiU be observed, differ from those above used, by having " This" for That, and " mis-used" for ill-used, but the meaning is of course exactly the same.'" " ' I afterwards shewed him [i.e. Mr. Parry,] the book itself, " Mr. Collier having already called on him twice since his accident ! *' These synonymous emendations have a strong family like- ness to the proposed correction of contiguity for " continuity," in the Seven Lectures, 1856, p. 33. ITS SUPPOSITITIOUS PEDIGREE. 71 and having looked at it in several places, he said " This was my book : it is the same ; but has been much misused since it was in my possession.' ' " This is in nearly the same words as Mr. Collier's prior account of the same interview in " The Athe- naeum" of February 18; 1860, with some amplifica- tions. Thus, instead of " including the cover," Mr. Collier in " The Athenaeum" wrote, " and I am very sure looked also at the cover." This, however^ is a detail not home out by Mr. Collier's manuscript note, which records Mr. Parry's remark with the simple introduction, " and having- looked at it in several places." This addition I can only look upon as an evidence of that eagerness in Mr. Collier to press all possible contingencies into the service of his folio. If such a variation were all the discrepancy between Mr. Collier's narratives and Mr. Parry's version of the third interview, that not over-scrupulous eager- ness, which is natural to a man of antiquarian ten- dencies, would serve to explain it away. But unfor- tunately the difference between Mr. CoUier's and Mr. Parry's versions is one oi diametrical opposition ; and if both accounts had been deposed to on oath, the in- evitable inference would have been that one of them, had perjured himself. From Mr. Parr^s manuscript I take the follow- ^'■- P^ry's ing narrative of that interview : — that inter- One day in the month of June (1853), Mr. Parry, wishing to have a little fresh air, (and perhaps with- out the doctor's leave,)^ got up, and took the two view. 72 THE PERKINS FOLIO : sticks, of which mention has been made, and re- marking that he had prophetically prepared them aofainst his accident, sallied forth from his house. Before he had gone far he met Mr. Collier in the street, and they walked a short distance together, and entered into conversation. He well remem- bers that with one of his sticks he shoved a stone out of the path, when Mr. Colher told him an anecdote of a friend of his who had been thrown down by a stone in the path ; and this was more the sub- ject of their conversation than anything else during that short walk. Mr. Parry says that, to the best of his recollection, Mr. Collier had no book with him, and that he (Mr. Parry) certainly should not have forgotten the incident had he been shewn the cor- rected folio in the street. He does not remember any other than these three interviews with Mr. Collier. What conclusion are we to draw from this most extraordinary oppugnancy of testimony ? It is, indeed, a most painful task that devolves on one who has undertaken to decide upon the merits of this portion of the controversy. I cannot see how it is possible to reject Mr. Parry's evidence, since he is not an interested witness. Whatever motive Mr. Collier may have had in making a false or incorrect statement as to what passed at this third interview, it is plain that Mr. Parrj^ had none. If his version be incorrect, it is so by a lapse of memory. But such a monstrous lapse of memory is quite inconceivable in a man of Mr. Parry's clear faculties. In his letter ITS SUPPOSITITIOUS PEBIGREE. 73 to Mr, Hamilton, which appeared in " The Times" of Aug-ust 1, 1859, Mr. Parry modestly says^ ^^I may be wrong and Mr. Collier may be right f but that is the qualification of a man who is as far removed from dogmatism as the poles are asunder. At the same time^ Mr. Parry has the best possible corrobo- ration of his recollection of what passed at this in- terview, for, as we shall see, when he did see the Perkins Foho at the British Museum, he saw a book which he was certain he had never seen before. If, then, we accept the other alternative, and say Evidence of that Mr. Collier's account is false or inaccurate, we ^ant of are bound to inquire whether the facts of the case '^^"^°^^i- countenance the supposition of a mere freak of me- mory, or of a positive falsification of facts. I am sorry to have to say that I find in the correspon- dence in " The Times " the clearest indication of moral delinquency on Mr. Collier's part. It is this : In his letter to ^^The Times" of July 7th, 1869, Mr. Collier Avrites : — " I have shown and sworn that this very book was in the possession of a gentleman named Parry about half a ceUtury ago, given to him by a relation named George &ray. Mr. Parry recognized it instantly, annotated as it is now ;" Mr. Collier may congratulate himself that the first of these two statements is not correct. If he had sworn to that, he would have committed perjury. But the fact is that he simply deposed to this — viz. " that all the statements in the said Preface and Introduc- 74 THE PERKINS FOLIO : tion, relative to the diBCOvery, contents, and authenticity of the said folio copy, and the manuscript notes, corrections, alterations, and emendations thereof are true;" and that Preface did not contain any dogmatic statement " that this very book was in the possession of a gentleman named Parry," &c. But let me call my reader's attention to the sen- tence which I have printed in italic type. Let him remember that this is an allusion to facts already made public. Mr. Collier is not vouchsafing new facts ; but reverting to old. Noav it is not the fact that any of Mr. CoUier's published narratives con- tained any account of Mr. Parry recognising the volume, or of even seeing it. This is, I conceive, the introduction of the narrow end of the wedg'e. Mr. Collier well knew that, whatever opportunities Mr. Parry had enjoyed of seeing the Perkins FoUo, the public had not been made aware of any identifi- cation of the volume itself, hut ofajincsimile of part of a page of it only. Knowing this, he seems to me to be saying to the pubhc in this letter, " You all know that Mr. Parry saw this volume, and recog- nized it ; at any rate you may read all about it in my preface ; and I have sworn to the truth of that." The rejoinder which the well-informed pubhc would naturally make, and which Mr. Hamilton'" and others did make, is to this efiect : " We know all about your preface and affidavit ; but you do not tell us 21 Letter to The Times, July 16th, 1860. ITS SUPPOSITITIOUS PEDIGREE. 75 there that Mr. Parry ever saw the folio at all." This opens the way for Mr. Collier's second letter to " The Times" (July 20, 1869); wherein he favours the public with a circumstantial narrative of the produc- tion of the folio to Mr. Parry in the street, of which production Mr. Parry has not the most distant re- collection. Mr. Hamilton having- unfortunately hampered Mr. Parry with crutches, so as to prevent the possibility of his having' handled a hug-e folio, and " looked at it in several places," Mr. Collier, by the law of " action and reaction," flies to the other ex- treme, and reduces Mr. Parry's holly and barberry sticks to one stick, which he held while Mr. Parry examined the folio : and then, in order that Mr. Parry's exact words may not depend on Mr. ColUer's recollection, we have an inaccurate (it appears to me & purposely inaccurate) version of them from Mr. Collier's memory, and a verlatim report of them from Mr. Collier's notes made immediately after the interview. AU this hang's together in a perfectly consistent tale of circumstances. No other hypothesis that I have tried will stand the slightest crucial test. Unfortunately, but none the less indisputably, the most probable explanation is one that is incompati- ble with Mr. Collier's truthfulness. I have now only to record the visit of Mr. Parry Mr. Parry's to the British Museum, on July 13th, 1859. On the^PerkLs this occasion Sir Frederic Madden shewed Mr. ■^°^°- Parry owe book— viz. the Perkins Folio, expecting 76 THE PERKINS FOLIO : that he would immediately recognize it. But Mr. Parry, instead of seeing- a book that had once been his own, or one that had been shewn to him by Mr. Collier, saw one that was a perfect stranger to him in every way. Thereupon, he wrote down, at Sir Frederic Madden's request, the following state- ment : — " British Museum, July 13th, 1859. and his evi- " On being shewn an old edition of Shakespeare's plays, den.ce there- j think I can positively say that it is not the book which ' Mr. Gray gave me in or about 1806. Sir Frederick Madden stated to me that this copy of Shakespeare, which he now pro- duces to me, was once in Mr. Collier's possession. (Signed) Pea? Ghas. Pahey." Mr. Parry further stated to Sir Frederic Madden, in the hearing of Mr. Hamilton (as he has subse- quently done to me and others) that he believed that his " volume was of the edition 1623 ; that it was in smooth dark binding, with a new back lettered with that date ; that it had no writing on the upper cover, was not so thick, and had a broader margin." Mr. Collier's Mr. Collier's mode of meeting this conclusive evi- underaiine dence that Mr. Parry had never seen the Perkins Ece!^' ^olio *i^ *^^ 1^*^ '^^yj 1^^^^ is utterly inconsistent with the supposition of his own ingenuousness. These are Mr. OoUier's words : — " He [Mr. Parry] is, like myself, advanced in years, and cer- ' tainly little able to compete with the imposing authorities at the British Museum. "When he went there on the 14th (sic) July last, for the purpose of inspecting the Perkins folio, in the presence of Sir P, Madden, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Maskelyne, and others, he may easily have been confused by the rapid ITS SUPPOSITITIOUS PEDIGREE. T"? passing and repassing of the folios of 1623 and 1632 before his eyes ; and at last he may not have been able to remember which edition had really been his own book,*' * * * and, he may hare been, as it were, cajoled out of his own conviction."" To this most discreditable charge of playing- off on the infirmity of an old man, a jug-gling- trick with two folios, a sort of game of book-rig, I shall sim- ply give Mr. Parry's own reply addressed to Sir F. Madden. "March 12, 1860. " I have this instant received your note requesting me to say whether the statement made by Mr. Collier in the Atheneeum of ]?eb. 18 last, namely, that you had confused me by passing and repassing folio Shakespeares before me, was true. I have no hesitation whatever in flatly contradicting that assertion. While I was conversing with you on the subject, you brought a large old book and placed it on the table. I looked at it several times whilst we were speaking together, and was greatly surprised when at length you took it up and said that was the book in question. I felt perfectly assured that I had never seen that book before. I also now must add that you did not show me any other book whatever, or speak of any other book on that occasion. I am, &c. (Signed) T. C. Pabet." Since writing this Mr. Parry found among his Eecovery of papers the loose fly-leaf of his lost folio, and he l£. Pairy's kindly forwarded it to me for examination. It is a ^°^°' quarter of an inch shorter, and about as much *" Eeply, p. 18, and The Athenaeum, Feb. 18, 1860. " Eeply, p. 19. E 78 THE PERKINS FOLIO. broader^ than the leaves of the Perkins Folio. It is covered with writing in a hand of the last centuiy, and among" other notes is an extract from Pope's pre- face to his edition of Shakspere.'^ ** The proof sheets containing Mr. Parry's evidence were revised by him before being sent to press. He is answerable for every statement I have made about him. CHAPTEE IV. The Perkins Foiio. — Me. Colliee's aocotikt of its Manusoeipt Notes. Mk. Collier's Notes and Emendations was not Mr. Collier's intended to contain all the manuscript notes of the Emenda- Perkins Folio. The second edition of that work^ ^'^^' after pag'e 200, contains considerable additions to the corrections published in the first edition. But still it was not put forward as anything else than what Mr. Tomhns calls " a selection of the emendations.'" For my part, I do not see what could have been gained by publishing all the corrections of the Perkins Folio. Certainly for the reading pubhc a judicious selection was aU that could be desired. I cannot say I think Mr. Collier's selection by any means judicious. On the contrary, a tenth part of that selection would have been sufficient for all con- Mr. Collier's ceivable purposes. But when Mr. CoUier, in 1856, every manu- undertook the publication of a complete list of the aud^j^ndl- manuscript corrections, he was certainly bound to *^°°'" *"• publish a list which should be as nearly exhaustive » The Critic, Aug. 27, 1859. F 2 80 THE PERKINS FOLIO: as practicable. To Mr. Hamilton is due the merit^ of ijointing" out and establishing' one of the most curious facts in the history of book-making, viz. that Mr. Collier's complete list does not contain half the manuscript corrections in the Perkins Folio. Of coiirse this would not be remarkable, if Mr. Collier's advertisement of his list had fairly stated that he had restricted himself to certain classes of corrections, or that he purposed to omit from his list a certain class of corrections. But this was not the case. Mr. Collier presents his list of 1866 to his readers with this notice : — ir rill- . "These 'Notes and Emendations' are before the world in Mr. Comer s pretension two separate editions ; but as the whole of the alterations and for the com- corrections were not included, and as those interested in such pleteness oi . .,•,,» his last. matters are anxious to see the entire body in the shortest form, I have appended them to the present volume in one column, whUe in the opposite column I have placed the old, or the received text."' Again : — * "I have gone over every emendation in the folio 1632 recently, for the purpose of the last portion of my present voliune ;" . . . and again* he writes, " I have often gone over the thousands of marks of all kinds in its margins ; but I wUl take this opportunity of pointing out two emendations of considerable importance, which happening not to * Inquiry, p. 30. 8 Preface to " Seven Lectures," p. Ix. * At p. Ixxiii. ' At p. Ixxix. MK. collier's account OF ITS MS. NOTES. 81 be in the margins, and being written with very pale ink, escaped my eye until some time after the appearanceof my second edition, as well as of the one-volume Shakspeare. For the purpose of the later portion of my present work, I have recently re-exa- mined every lime and letter of the folio 1632, and I can safely assert that no other sin of omission on my part can be dis- covered." Inasmuch as the Complete List contains a great many corrections which are not in either edition of the Notes and Emendations, we mig-ht infer from the last extract that the two corrections which he proceeds to specify are not in that list. But such an inference would he wrong-, as both are there. So we must needs conclude that Mr. ColKer puts forth his list as absolutely exhaustive of the stores of his " old corrector." The list itself is entitled, " A list of every manuscript note and emendation in Mr. Collier's copy of Shakespeare's Worts, Foho. 1633." "Yet/' says Mr. Hamilton/ " in spite of these reiterated assertions, the literal fact is, that the Complete List does not contain one Aalfoi the correc- tions, many of the most significant being among those omitted." Mr. Hamilton then gives a hst of every manu- Mr. HamU- script correction in the play of Hamlet. In this every note list, omitting cancels of passages for the purpose of l^tiorkT' shortening the piece, there are, (if I have counted Hamlet, accurately, which it is not easy to do) 486 correc- tions. Of these only 135 are said to be in Mr. Col- lier's complete list. But of these 436, not a few are 6 Inquiry, p. 31, 82 THE PERKINS POLIO t cases of corrections obKterated^ but still legible/ and one is a pencil correction. But, though I have no doubt Mr. Hamilton's table (for the collations of which he is indebted to the more practised eye of Mr. Staunton) is a very close approximation to accuracy, I do not think it fairly states the case against Mr. Collier. I find that some corrections, not contained in Mr. Collier's Com- plete List, are yet in the Notes and Emendations, and those are not marked with a " C " in Mr. Hamil- ton's table. But after making this addition to the catalogue of Mr. Collier's acknowledgments, I ^tUl find that, taking into consideration all his works on these corrections, he has actually ignored altogether considerably more than two thirds of the manuscript corrections in Hamlet. It would be very strange in- deed if, taking all the plays in the Perkins Folio, it should be found that Mr. ColHer had acknowledged anything like half of the alterations and additions of his old corrector. The charge Now this does appear to me to be a most extra- sentetion*'^ Ordinary fact. An editor of high character and po- ComCT ■'^■sition in literature annoimces that he has recently stated. gone over every emendation in his corrected second folio, expressly for his list, — and (for that and other publications) has often gone over the thousands of marks of all hinds in its margins ; and lias recently reexamined every line and letter of his folio, and '' I have not counted two cases of obliteration, where the cor- rections cannot be wholly deciphered. MR. collier's account OP ITS MS. NOTES. 83 challenges his readers to bring against him a single sin of omission. He then professes to publish a list of every manuscript note and emendation in his folio. Such is the flourish of trumpets and prologue. Then the theme comes on ; and we find in the list "^ less than half the notes and emendations which ac- | tually exist in ink, and in a legible state on the margins and between the lines of his corrected folio ! If this omission were intentional on Mr. Collier's Mr. Collier'f part, aU I can say is, that society has a very ex- '^®™^^- pressive word to designate such conduct. Among the Houyhnhnms, it would be called " saying the thing which is not," without any imputation of wilful misre- presentation. If the omission were accidental— a mere oversight — what an editor have we here ! Such is the dilemma, the horns of which are presented to Mr. OolUer^ and apparently thinking lightly of the moral delinquency, he accepts the first. He coolly teUs us,® that " many of [^' the real or supposed omissions in Hamlet,"] I never dreamed at any time of including." It should be noted here that there are no " supposed omissions" in Mr. Hamil- ton's table which are not "real." So Mr. Col- lier obliges his readers to conclude that he has made a special point of introducing his "List" as a complete and exhaustive one, when he had inten- tionally omitted a majority of the notes and emen- dations. That Mr. Collier should have done this is, indeed, 8 Eeply, p. 23, note. 84 THE PERKINS FOLIO: passing strang-e. But it is far more extraordinary to find him bringing- forward the fact of intentional omission on his part as his exculpation for the un- exampled shortcomings of his Complete List ! No principle What class of Corrections can that be which Mr. have guided CoUier " never dreamed at any time of including ?" inhisrejec- W^s it "literal Corrections" — i.e. where there is tions. Q^Yy a change of the letter, without change of the sense ? Certainly not ; for the Complete list teems with such corrections : as usuries for " usances" in Measure for Measure, and grisled for "grisly" in Samlet. Why then did he omit honoured for "honourable" in the latter play? Was it " changes of punctuation or spelling ?" No ; for Mr. Collier makes a point of such changes in his Notes and Emendatiotis ; and besides, they form but a small proportion of the " old corrector's" alterations. Nor could it have been Mr. Collier's intention to omit only such " corrections" as were not new : for in that case he would have omitted more than half those in his Complete List : and then how are we to account for the omission of such emendations as the insertion of the word " but," in the line " The sup- phance of a minute ; a. No more." In one page of the corrected folio {Hamlet), Mr. Arnold has mentioned' ^ See Fraser's Magazine, Peb. 1860, p. 181, where this point is very well enforced. See also Mr. HaUiweU's observations on some of the Mannscript Emendations, &c. p. 11, where the reader wiU find a very remarkable instance of Mr. Collier's default. MR, collier's account OF ITS MS. NOTES, 86 that there are fourteen alterations, of which only five are given hy Mr. Collier ; of the nine ignored by him, the one quoted above is a novelty j another was given by Hanmer ; another was proposed by John- son ; and six had been adopted by Mr. ColHer in his edition, 1841-1844, without any note. In short no guiding principle of exclusion is dis- coverable. Another omission pointed out by Mr. Arnold is Examples of still more remarkable. I give that writer's own cies b^Ween ^'ords:-- twS' ., _ __ -rT-r-TT J • 1 -n 1 . . ^^- Collier's In Men. ylll., act i. sc. i, where Brandon is enumeratmg account of it. to the Duke of Buckingham ' the limbs o' the plot' against him, I. Michael this line occurs, as printed in the folio : — N^^'^'T* "' Beait. a monk of the Chartreux. Henton. Buck. Oh! Michael Hophim? Bean. He. In sc. 2 this same person is, by the Duke's surreyor, called Nicholas Senton. Theobald was the first to point out, from Holingshed's Chronicle, that this person's real name was Nicho- las Sopkins, and that he was a monk of a house ' beside Bris- tow, called Henton.' He altered the name, however, in both places, ' for perspicuity's sake,' to Nicholas SopJcins, though he admitted he might sometimes have been named Henton from the place. Theobald's alteration has been adopted by modern editors. Mr. Knight, indeed, retains the reading of the folio, ingeniously attributing the mistake made by the Duke in the Christian name to his precipitation ; Mr. CoUier himself, in his eight-volume edition, although he professes to adhere so closely to the old copies, retains Theobald's emendation, and explains '» Praser's Magaziue, Feb. 1860, p. 182. 86 THE PERKINS FOLIO : the mistake in a note, though he seems to take the credit of the discovery to himself. In the corrected folio, 1632, in the first cited passage, the name Michael Sophins is erased and Nicho- las Senton is written by the side, so as to make the name cor- respond with that given in sc. 2, as to which no alteration was made. Mr. Collier does not notice this emendation. Why not ? It was important, as shewing that, according to the lights vouchsafed to the ' Old Corrector,' Nicholas Senton was the proper appellation in both places. The alteration could not have been overlooked. It happens, indeed, ' not to be in the mar- gin ;' it is in the body of the book, in a blank space, but written with anything but ' very pale ink ;' and being the only altera- tion on a remarkably clean page it could not ' escape the eye' of any one who merely opened the page, much less of a person who examined and ' re-examined every line and letter of the foUo.' " II. Fire v. In " Notes and Queries,"" Mr. Collier calls the at- tention of the readers of that periodical to a passage in Measure for Measure, act iii. sc. 1 : — " For thine own bowels, which do call thee, fire The mere efi'usion of thy proper loina. Do curse the gout, &c." " The above," he writes, " is as the passage is given in every other copy of the foKo 1632 I have inspected, but that in my hands with early manuscript corrections ; there the second of the above lines stands as follows : " For thine own bowels, which do call thee sire," most clearly and unmistakably printed. Is any other copy known with the same peculiarity ?" This is entirely incorrect. The comma after " thee," is cancelled in ink, and the cross of the f is, on the " First Series, vol. vi. p. 141. sire. ME. collier's account OF ITS MS. NOTES. 87 inside, erased with a knife, and the erasure is as plain as an erasure can be. In the same communication Mr. Collier also calls III. Sly v. attention to a passage in Richard II. act i. sc. 3 :^ ^' " The sly slow hours shall not determinate The dateless limit of thy dear exile." which he believes to be the reading of " aU copies of the folio 1632, excepting [his]." He continues : " It has been customary, I believe, to print " sly slow," jly-slow, on the example and recommendation of Pope ; but Steevens questions the propriety of doing so, and I, hastily perhaps, adopted his opinion, from an anxiety to adhere to the old impressions in aU cases where it was possible to make sense out of the original reading. My foUo 1632 did not come into my possession until long afterwards, and there to my surprise I found " sly slow" printed ^ysfoec, the old manuscript-corrector having, moreover, placed a hyphen between the two words, so as to make the line read — " The fly-slow hours shall not determinate." The statement that " fly slow" is so printed is incorrect. Mr. Collier himself confesses that " the cross-stroke from the f to the 1 in "fly-slow" is rather faint :" I may add that it is unmistakably written with a pen. Mr. Hamilton,'^ calls attention to another singular iv. Eeeps « discrepancy. In the line, " Keepes on his wonder, ^'®^''^' keepes himself in cloudes,"" the "old corrector" has cancelled the letters hecp ; "but," says Mr. Hamilton, " the margin on which the correction is made has ' Inquiry, p. 48. " Hamlet, act v. sc. 3. 88 THE PEEKINS FOLIO: been carefully torn away." Then follows a note in these words : — " In the Complete List we are told by Mr. Collier that the • corrected' Polio has ' Feeds for Jceepes ;" Feeds being the read- ing of the 4toa. Consequently the margin must have been in- tentionally mutilated since 1856, when the Idst was published, in order to get rid of the reading of the 4tos ! Similar in- stances of recent mutilation occur throughout the ' PoUo.' " I must confess my utter inability to understand what a mutilator could propose to himself in tearing- away this emendation. Any one who suspects Mr. Collier of doing- this, must have a very low esti- mate of that gentleman's wit. How he was to get rid of the reading- of the quartos, after he had himself made it pubhc in his Complete List, surpasses my comprehension. StiU, the mutilation, which no doubt exists, is a singular fact, and creates a discrepancy between the book itself and Mr. CoUier's account of it. If the mutilation have been perpetrated since Mr. Collier reexamined the page, who, in the house- hold of Mr. Collier, or in that of the Duke of Devon- shu-e did it, and why ? If it were done before, whence did Mr. Collier obtain the emendation ? V. The sta- In the sixth chapter of my opusculum on The in winter's Shakspeare Fabrications, I have given the following five cases of " remarkable discrepancies," between the Perkins FoUo and Mr. Collier's account of it. In Winter's Tale, act v. sc. 8, occurs this passage, " Let be, let be ! "Would I were dead, but that methinks already What was he that did make it ?" Tale. MR. collier's account OF ITS MS. NOTES. 89 Mr. Collier comments thus upon it : — " ' Let, let be ! ' is addressed to Paulina, who offers to draw the curtain before the statue of Hermione, as we find from a manuscript stage direction, and the writer of it, in a vacant space adjoining, thus supplies a missing line, which we have printed in italic type : — Let be, let be ! Would I were dead, but that, methinks, already I am hut dead, stone looking upon stone. What was he that did make it ?" It should be remarked that there is no comma after the word " AeoA." in the manuscript. The introduction of that comma is an emendation of Mr. Collier's on the manuscript line. Besides^ the men- tion of a " vacant place" is dising-enuous, for the space on which the line is written was not altog-e- ther vacant, and had once been occupied bj a pre- vious attempt of the " old corrector/' of which the words " looking- upon deade stone" are still legible,'* though they have been erased with a penknife. There can be little doubt that the Une which for- merly occupied this space was, " I am but dead looking upon deade stone :" upon the erasure of this hue, but not coincident with it, has been written this hne : " I am but dead stone looking upon stone." The merits of this manufacture I shall have to dis- cuss in another place. " To Sir P. Madden and Mr. Hamilton I am indebted for deciphering these words. 90 THE PERKINS FOLIO: VI. Controul In Coriolmius, act iii. sc. 2, occurs this passage : — V. reproof. "VoLTJMNiA. . . • Praybe counsell'd ; I have a heart as little apt as yours. But yet a brain, that leads my use of anger To better vantage." The " old corrector" interpolates a line after "yours/' " To brook controul without the use of anger." So, in fact, the line stands in the Perkins Folio ; and so Mr. CoUier gave it in Notes and Mnenda- tions^^ in the facsimile which was subsequently made for private distribution, in his one-volume edition of Shakespeare, and in his Appendix to the Seven Lec- tures. And yet with a strange obliviousness, he thus gives the line in his edition of 1868,'^ " To brook /■eproo/' without the use of anger ;" and tells us in a note, " This line is from the corrected folio 1632, and is clearly ■wanted, since the sense is incomplete without it." vn. Ee- In Timon of Athens, act ii. sc. 2, Flavins la- S':i.rnientsthatTimon resumes. « takes no account How things go from him, nor resumes no care Of what is to continue. Never mind Was to be so unwise, to be so kind." Mr. Collier tells us in his Notes and Emendations,^'' that the " old corrector" reads the passage thxis : — " 1st Ed. pp. xxiv. and 357 ; 2nd Ed. pp. xxxi. and 361. '^ Vol. iv. p. 666 (!) " 1st Ed. p. 389 ; 2nd Ed. p. 399. MR. collier's account OF ITS MS. NOTES. 91 " . . . Takes no account How things go from him ; no reserve ; no care Of what is to continue. Never mind Was surely so unwise, to be so kind." And SO; indeed; it stands in the Perkins Folio ; but I must add, that " so" has once been struck through, and too has been put in the margin, and been partially erased. Mr. Collier gives the same version of these two emendations in his one-volume edition of Shake- speare, and in the Appendix to the Seven Lectures. And yet in his edition of 1858,'* he gives the passage thus : — " . . . takes no account How things go from him ; no reserves, no care Of what is to continue ;'"'9 In Much ado about Nothing, act ii. so. 1, Bene- vili. im- dict speaks of Beatrice "huddling jest upon jest ^portable* with such impossible conveyance." The " old cor- '^■^^ impossi- rector" appears to have first drawn his pen through " possible," and in the margin written portable, thus making the word importable ; which is a word in use in Shakspere's day. But not satisfied "with this, he scratched out the dot of the " i," and turned the " im" into un, thus making the word unportable. And in remarkable harmony with this work of the " old corrector," we find that in Notes and Emen- dations^ Mr. Collier teUs us that the " old cor- " Vol. V. p. 231. " This discrepancy, and the last, were first mentioned to me by Mr. Staunton. "^ Ist and 2nd Ed. p. 68. 93 THE PERKINS FOLIO. rector's" word was importable; but in the Seven Lectures^^ he tells us that the " old corrector's" word is unportable ; while in his edition of ISSS^''^ he installs importahle in the text, and tells us, in a note, that such is the word of the corrected folio 1632. I must say this has the very ug-ly appear- ance of Mr. Collier having- forgotten that the " old corrector" had altered his word, between 1853 and 1856. I will give one more instance of discrepancy. IX. The In 2 Hen. VI. act iv. sc. 7, after the stage direc- in2Hen^. tion, "Re-enter Rebels, with the heads o/"Lord Say and his Son-in-law," Jack Cade says, " But is not this braver ? — Let them kiss one another, for they loved well, when they were alive." On this Mr. Collier has this note : — ^ " Here the corrected folio 1632, adds as a stage direction, ' Jowl them together,' and no doubt the rebels suited the action to the word. The fact is related by Holinahed." Now, where did Mr.CoUier get the word " together" ? The " corrected foKo 1632," has simply Jowle them. If we are to regard these cases of discrepancy as mere errors of deciphering (!) or of citation, I must regard it as unfortunate that we cannot conjure up Congreve's ghost, and move him to write a second treatise, to be entitled " Amendments of Mr. Col- lier's False and Imperfect Citations, &c. Svo. 1860," instead of 1698, which is the date of Congreve's retahation, so entitled. " p. 168. 22 Vol. ii. p. 27. » Ed. 1858. CHAPTER V. The Pebkins Folio. — The Museum Inquisition on its Manusceipt Notes. The preceding three chapters relate merely to Is the ink- the discovery of the folio, its supposititious pedi- genuine gree, and its contents. The question as to whether ^^^ °gn. ^ the manuscript corrections are, what from their *^^^^ character they pretend to he, in a handwriting of the 17 th century, or whether they are in a hand-: writing of the 19th century, intended to simulate one or more handwritings of the 17th century, remains to he examined. It is ohvious that there are three kinds of evi- The three dence which may he hrought to hear on the manuscript evidence corrections, with a view to the settlement of that ''^*^^^®- question : 1st, That which is called external evidence — viz. the peculiarities of the forms of the letters and signs employed, and of the ink or colouring matter in which they are written ; 2ndly, That which is called internal evidence — ^viz. the peculiarities of the corrections themselves, irrespective of the writing ; and 3rdly, That which I may call the collateral evidence— viz. the peculiarities of the conduct of some person or persons jn respect of the folio, and its G 94 THE PERKINS FOLIO: manuscript corrections. It is obvious that if the ma- nuscript notes can be proved to be of the 19th century by the sagacity of palseographists and record-readers, (though " the general," vi'ho know nothing of the art of palaeography, may possibly not be convinced by their testimony,) the notes are at once condemned forgeries, however free from anachronism the cor- rections themselves may be, and however free from the taint of modem dealing by this or that person. Accordingly, it was felt by all persons interested in the question of the genuineness of the manuscript notes, that the first thing to be done with them was to submit them to a palgeographic scrutiny. While the volume was in Mr. Collier's possession, there were insuperable difficulties in doing this : for that gentleman having shewn his foho, under restrictions, on two occasions to the members of the Shakspere Society, and at two evening meetings of the Society of Antiquaries, and further having invited the Fel- lows of that Society to inspect it by daylight, under restrictions,' considered that he had done all that could be desired to court and facilitate examination. Presentation When the volume had passed into the possession of of the Per- ^ ^ kins Folio to the late, and after^vafds had become the property of the late Duke of Devonshire. Duke of th^ present Duke of Devonshire, there were still ^ See page 32. " It must also be distinctly understood that no gentleman is at liberty to make memoranda," &e. Now it is only by copious and laborious " memoranda " that a palseo- graphic scrutiny of the Perkins Folio can be performed. THE MUSEUM INQUISITION. 95 great obstacles in the way of a palseographic scru- tiny. Mr. Herman Merivale, indeed, says/ " It lay in his Grace's library for two or three years, open to inspection by respectable persons with very little difficulty." But this is simply untrue, I myself was more Diffieulty of than a year, using every means of seeing the book ; ^*'^** *° ^** but the Duke's librarian refused to exhibit it, and the Duke himself did not know where it was ', and I never could get a sight of it until it had been depo- sited in the Department of Manuscripts of the Dritigh Museum. The circumstances which ultimately led to the The occasion Perkins Folio being submitted to a palaeographic g^J^^^^^I scrutiny Were these : Among other means of ffettins: British •' " ^ & & Museum. a sight of the once mysterious volume was the one of calling upon Sir F. Madden, the Keeper of the Manuscripts of the British Museum, to use his influence in getting the folio deposited there. This course was suggested to me by the follow- ing incident. In the year 1856 I accidentally met Mr. W. J. Thoms (the editor of " Notes and Queries") in a bookseller's shop in the Strand or Fleet-street, and in the course of half an hour's pleasant conversation with him, I stated my con- viction that the Perkins notes were not genuine. He replied that he believed them to be so, and for- tified his own opinion by citing those of other men of letters. In particular he assured me that Sir F. Madden believed the notes to be genuine. Having- ' Edinburgh Eeview, April, 1860, vol. CLT. p. 478. g2 96 THE PERKINS FOLIO: gi'eat doubts about the correctness of Mr. Thorns' statement;, I went, accompanied by Mr. A. F. Mayo (the son of Dr. Thomas Mayo), to call on Sir F. Madden, in order to learn his opinion of the notes f from his own mouth. He told me that he had ' never expressed any opinion whatever about the , notes, and had never so much as seen the foUo. I did not mention Mr. Thorns' name in connexion with the subject. This visit put it into my head to apply to Sir F. Madden for the use of his influ- ence in procuring the deposit of the Perkins FoHo at the British Museum. Accordingly, in the autumn of 1858, I again called on Sir F. Madden. I told him that I had been unsuccessful in seeing the Perkins Folio at Devonshire House. I said that judging from the use of certain words, and from Mr. Collier's conduct in respect of a stage direction in one play {Hamlet), and an emendation in another {AlVs well j thM ends welt), I was convinced that the manuscript ' notes were spurious. Sir F. Madden's reply was, that he could not beheve that so large a number of corrections could have been fabricated in modern titnes ; and added, with some warmth, that he was a friend of Mr. Collier's, and was satisfied that Mr. Collier's faith was above suspicion. I then in- quired whether he (Sir Frederic) would have any objection to write to the Duke of Devonshire, and ask his Grace for the loan of the foKo, in order to submit it to 9. palaeographic examination. He said that he had no objection to do so, but that he was THE MUSEUM INQUISITION. 97 then so fully occupied that he must postpone for the present making the application. I understand that Mr. Staunton also called on Sir Frederic Madden with the same ohject, and received substantially the same reply. In consequence of these two applica- tions^ Sir Frederic Madden, with true courtesy, on Sept. 6, 1858, addressed a request to Mr. Collier, (rather than apply immediately to the Duke), that he would procure him (Sir Frederic) a sight of the folio. To this request — in fact to the letter in I which it was contained, and which related to other \ subjects — Sir Frederic Madden received no answer/ Official and other business intervening, he did not act on his resolution of writing to the Duke tUl May 1859, when Professor Bodenstedt was introduced to him by Mr. Watts of the British Museum, and the learned Bavarian having expressed a great desire to see the foUo, Sir Frederic promised to meet his wishes, and at the same time to give several of his Shaksperian friends an opportunity of examining the volume. Ac- \ cordingly on May 13th, he wrote to the Duke request- ing the loan of the volume for a short time, and by his Grace's UberaUty it was sent to him on the 36th of the same month, late in the day. In the even- ing of the same day Sir Frederic wrote letters to Professor Bodenstedt, the Bev. A. Dyce, Mr. "W. J. Thoms (a friend of Mr. Colher's), and Mr. Staunton, inviting them to see the volume. , On the following morning Sir Frederic Madden Sir P. Mad- and Mr. Bond proceeded to examine the manuscript Bond 98 THE PERKINS FOLIO: MS°S>tes^^ notes on palaeographic grounds, and they were both I struck with the very suspicious character of the I writing — certainly the work of one hand, but pre- i f] senting varieties of forms assignable to different [/ \ periods — the evident painting over of many of the Sir F. Mad- letters, and the artificial look of the ink. The day opSiion. had not passed before Sir Frederic had quite made up his mind that the " old corrector " had never lived in ' the 17th century^ but that the notes were fabricated The volume at a recent period. On the 28th May, Mr. Dyce requert!^^ came to see the volume in Sir Frederic's study ; on the 30th, Mr. Forster; on the 31st, Professor Bodenstedt ; and on the 1st and 2nd of June, Mr. Bruce, a friend of Mr. Collier's. On the latter day Mr. Hamilton called his chiefs attention to the numerous words deleted in the margin, either with an acid or rubbed out, apparently with the finger, and many more half effaced. From the commence- ment of Jime not a day passed without the volume being inspected constantly in Sir F. Madden's study by literary and other persons, and almost always iu his presence. On the 4th June I went to the Department of Manuscripts with Mr. Staunton, and examined a great number of previously selected passages in Mr. Hamilton's presence ; but as the time for closing the Museum had passed, and Sn- F. Madden was not there, I postponed all further examination of the book till the Monday following, viz. the 6th June. V On the morning of that day I again visited the THE MUSEUM INQUISITION. 99 Department of Manuscripts, and saw the book in Sir Frederic Madden's presence. Sir Frederic now told me that, after a brief examination, he had come to the conclusion that the manuscript notes were not in the handwriting" of any known period, but were ex- ceedingly clumsy imitations of some handwritings prevalent in the 17 th century. Sir Frederic, however, still very earnestly expressed his belief in Mr. Collier's bona Jldes, and refused to allow his opinion to be publicly expressed, lest such an ex- pression might be used by Mr. Collier's opponents to prejudice that gentleman's character. During this visit, while I was very closely ex- Discovery of N amining certain passages in the folio, I was sur-^ |y°^|"fa. / prised by the appearance of a pencil mark or line j gieby- ^ and on tracing it by the eye I concluded, perhaps hastily, that it passed under the ink word. I ac- cordingly directed Sir Frederic Madden's attention to it. But Sir Frederic Madden did not appear to attach any importance to the remark, and did not pursue the inquiry I had suggested. Within a week after this occurred Mr. Hamilton, Discovery of while poring over the volume, discovered that its ponde^ebe- margins were covered with miniite and half oblite- ^^J Znd^ rated pencil marks, some of which appeared to ^f'^^^^jP' underHe the ink, and, what was a new feature, that Hamilton, all of them appeared to correspond with the ink wri- ting. He at once called Sir Frederic Madden's attention to these circumstances. Sir Frederic ac- cordingly again looked through the volume page by en- 100 THE PERKINS FOLIO: page, and was inexpressibly astonished to discover hundreds of marks of punctuation and corrig-enda in pencil, more or less distinct, in an apparently modern hand, which were evidently intended as a guide to the " old corrector," in nearly all cases followed by a corresponding- alteration of the text in ink. En- tire words were also found written in pencil, and to the eyes of Sir F. Madden, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Ha- milton, it seemed clear that some of these penciUings did underlie the ink.^ Mr. Hamilton writes : — * Mr. Hamil- " In the first place, they have none of the feigned antiquity tonsaecoimt a^o^t them of the ink corrections, either in form or spelling, of his first . . to examiaation They are in a bold, clear handwriting of the present day, are of the MS. evidently executed by one hand throughout, and have been placed on the margins to direct the alterations afterwards made in ink, and with which they invariably correspond. They are of various kinds. Amongst the most common are crosses and ticks, apparently used to call attention to words or letters requiring correction. Some of them may, of course, be the " crosses, ticks, or lines'' which Mr. CoUier acknowledges he introduced himself ; but as cases occur where such pencil-ticks actually underlie cor- rections in ink, some of them at least must have been placed on the margins before the " Old Corrector" commenced his labours. The ordinary signs in use to indicate corrigenda for the press are of common occurrence in the margins, whUe the corrections indicated thereby are made in the text in the quasi- 3 To save " Indagators" of the Periodical Press the trouble of finding a mare's-nest, I beg to call attention to the circum- stance that I have derived most of the particulars of this narrative from Sir Frederic Madden's letter to " The Critic " of the 24th March, 1860, which is reprinted in the appendix to this book. * Inquiry, p. 24. THE MUSEUM INQUISITION. 101 antique ink.* Again, whole syllables or words occur in pencil, partially rubbed out, but still legible, and in which the character of the modem handwriting is plainly visible ; while in near neighbourhood to them, the same syllable or word is repeated in ink in the antique hand. In some cases the ink word and the pencil word occupy the same space in the margin, and are writ- ten one upon the qther ; and in these instances the naked eye readily detects the fact that the pencil has been written prior to the ink. As, however, the most positive evidence on this head was desirable, its decision forming one of the turning-points of the inquiry ; Mr. Maskelyne, by permission of the Duke of \ Devonshire, undertook to institute a series of microscopic and j chemical experiments on the subject. The importance of they^ point lay in this : that since the pencil alterations were un- V deniably recent * * *, it followed that the ink corrections, I if written subsequently to these, must be modem likewise, how- I ever carefully an antique appearance might have been simulated / for them." Professor Maskelyne's experiments were of three Prof. Maske- descriptions^- o^^icaZj chemical, and mechanical. To closes of ex- determine whether a given pencil hne is above or P^'^™®'^ *• beneath an ink hne, it is necessary to observe whe- ther the former is traceable through the latter where they cross, which can only be satisfactorily done by the aid of the microscope ; or it is still better to re- move the ink, mechanically or chemically (according to its nature), and then to observe whether the con- tinuity of the pencil hne is restored : if so, the pencil was under the ink j if not, the ink was under the pencil. * See sheet no. IV., where I have presented the reader with examples of the old corrector's mode of altering the punctua- tion of the Perkins Folio. 102 THE PERKINS FOLIO! Prof.Maske- This chemist^ in calling public attention to his the use of tte mode of manipulation^ and its results, in ''The microscope. Times " of July 16th, 1859, says:— " I suggested the use of an instrument which has already done good service in an analogous case (that of the Simonides* Uranius) — the microscope." Mr. Collier, in his Letter to " The Athenaeum" of Feb. 18th, 1860, writes thus:— Mr. Collier " In this imdertaking he [Mr. Hamilton] was avowedly aided Si^^fdes^^ by Sir P. Madden and by Mr. Maskelyne, of the Mineral De- Uranius for a partment, who brought for their use a microscope bearing the microscope, ^mpoging and scientific name of the Simonides Uranius." That the public should have mistaken the meaning- of " the Simonides' Uranius," was perhaps not im- fj probable ; but it certainly provoked no little ridicule to 1 1 find Mr. Collier ignorant of one of the most notorious * \ literary forgeries that the world has ever known, and perpetrating a blunder from which, in the absence of a knowledge of letters, his knowledge of English grammar ought to have saved him. On the mistake being brought to his notice, he excused himself by confessing,* "I have no pretensions to science of any kind, and I mistook Mr. Maskelyne's parenthe- sis." " Why this is a more excelLentJault than the other." It was not Mr. OoUier's ignorance of science that provoked the smile, but his ignorance of an in- cident in letters which is as widely kno\\Ti as his Perkins Folio. As Mr. Maskelyne says, it is '' an analogous case." Constantino Simonides, a Greek by birth, and at present resident in Liverpool, after per- 6 Eeply, p. 23. THE MUSEUM INQUISITION. 103 petrating a long- series of forg'eiies of Greek manu- scripts, professed to have discovered a palimpsest^ The Uranius of a history of Egypt by Uranius. It consisted of Simomdes. 71 leaves, and each page comprised two columns. In aU there were 284 columns. That it was a pa- limpsest was evident from the fact that four other manuscripts had originally been written, apparently over the obliterated, or partially obliterated, work of Uranius : — viz. 1. A work of Flavius Josephus; 2. A history of the Virgin Mary ; 3. A work of the Emperor Constantine ; and 4. A history of St. John the Baptist. All these were written in a 12th cen- tury hand ; and through them Simonides pretended to have discovered an underlying manuscript work of Uranius. The palimpsest was submitted to the ablest scholars of Germany ; and with the single and most honom'able exception of Alexander von Hum- boldt, aU of them, including the erudite Dr. Dindorf, were completely convinced of the genuineness of the Uranius manuscript. A large sum of money was given toi Simonides ias the price of the palimpsest. At last, the suspicions of Professor Lepsius having been aroused by the extraordinary confirmation which Uranius gave throughout to his own system of Efirvptian chronology, he called in the aid of Profes- T^® forgery °«'J^ . . , discovered sor Ehrenberg, who applied to the manuscript his by the use of powerfid microscope, and at once discovered the fact scope. ' That manuscript is called a palimpsest which has been written on the papyrus or parchment from which a previously written manuscript has been expunged. 104 THE PERKINS FOLIO : that wherever the writing' of the so-called palimpsest was crossed by the 12th century writing', the ink of the apparently old uncial letters in reality overlay the writing" of the other works.* The result of this discovery to Simonides, was his residence for a length of time in the dungeons of Berlin. The result of Professor Maskelyne's scrutiny of the manuscript in the Perkins Folio affords, as yet, no parallel to the dungeon catastrophe. Optically ; Professor Maskelyne reports thus : — The restilt of " The microscope reveals the particles of plumbago in the hol- tio^ o? the^ ^°^^ °^ ^^^ paper, and in no case that I have yet examined does microscope it fail to bring this fact forward into incontrovertible reality, to the Per- ggcondly the ink presents a rather singular aspect under the microscope. Its appearance in many cases on, rather than in the paper, suggested the idea of its being a water-colour paint rather than an ink ; it has a remarkable lustre, and the distri- bution of particles of colouring matter in it seems unlike that in inks, ancient or modem, that I have yet examined."' The chemical Chemically, Professor Maskelyne informs us that the ink has a taste — " unlike the styptic taste of ordinary inks, which it imparts to the tongue, and by its substance evidently yielding to the action of damp." But that "its colouring matter resists the action of chemical agents which rapidly change inks, ancient or modem, whose colour is due to iron." The mecha- Mechanically; Professor Maskelyne informs us nical test. ri , .r. • _. • i that the seeming- mk — " proves to be a paint removable, with the exception of a slight 8 I take this account from " The Athenaeum," Feb. 16, 1856. 9 Letter in The Times of July 16, 1859. THE MUSEUM INQUISITION. 105 stain, by mere water," and that " its prevailing character is that of a paint formed perhaps of sepia, or of sepia mixed with a little Indian ink." " I have nowhere been able to detect the General re- pencil-mark clearly overlying the ink, though in several places jjfaskelvn^s the pencil stops abruptly at the ink, and some seems to be just examiaation. traceable through its translucent substance, while lacking there the generally metallic lustre of the plumbago. But the question is set at rest by the removal by water of the ink in instances where the ink and the pencil intersected each other. The first case I chose for this purpose was a a in Michard II., p. 36. A pencil tick crossed the «, intersecting each limb of that letter. The pencil was barely visible through the first stroke, and not at all visible under the second stroke of the «. On damping off the ink in the first stroke, however, the pencil-mark became much plainer than before, and even when as much of the ink- stain as possible was removed the pencil still runs through the ink line in unbroken even continuity. Had the pencil been superposed on the ink, it must have lain superficially upon its lustrous surface and have been removed in the washing. We must, I think, be led by this to the inference that the pencil underlies the ink — that is to say, was antecedent to it in its date ; while, also, it is evident that the " old commentabor" had done his best to rub out the pencil writing before he introduced its ink substitute. Now it is clear that evidence of this kind cannot by itself establish a forgery. It is on palaBographical grounds alone that the modem character of the penciUings can be established ; but this point once determined in the affirmative, the result j of the physical inquiry certainly will be to make the " old com-y mentator" far less venerable." There are thus two questions, quite independent ^e^^°^ ^^^ of each other, for the solution of palaeographists : — flie solution .,.,,. . , _,^, . of palseogra- Ist, Are the ink-notes m a genuine 17th century phists. hand? 2nd. Are the penciUings in a modern cursive ? 106 THE PERKINS FOLIO : Before entering' on the consideration of the im- portance of keeping- these questions distinct, a point which has been fully recognized by the palseogra- phists, but strangely lost sight of by the critics, I will proceed to consider the features of the Perkins Folio, of which Sir F. Madden and Mr. Hamilton took especial cognizance, and which are clearly de- tailed by the latter gentleman in his letter, pubhshed in " The Times " of July 2nd, 1869. He writes :— " The volume is bound in rough calf (probably about the ton's account middle of George II.'s reign), the water-mark of the leaves of the Per- pasted inside the cover being a crown surmounting the letters and its MS " ^- ■^•" {peorgius Rex), and the Dutch lion within a paling, notes. with the legend pro patrid ; and there is evidence to shew that the corrections, though intended to resemble a hand of the middle of the 17th century, could not have been written on the margins of the volume until after it was bound, and conse- quently not, at the earliest, until towards the middle of the 18th. I should enter more minutely into this feature of the case, did not the corrections themselves, when closely examined, fur- nish facts so precise and so startling in their character that all collateral and constructive evidence seems unnecessary and in- significant. They at first sight seem to be of two kinds, — those, namely, which have been allowed to remain, and those which have been obliterated vrith more or less success, sometimes by erasure with a penknife or the employment of chymical agency, and sometimes by tearing and cutting away parts of the margin. The corrections thus variously obliterated are probably almost as numerous as those sufiered to remain, and in importance equal to them. Whole lines, entire words, and stage directions, have been attempted to be got rid of, though in many instances without success, as a glance at the various readings of a first portion of Hamlet, which I subjoin, will shew. THE MUSEUM INQUISITION. 107 Of the corrections allowed to stand, some, on a hasty glance, might, so far as the handwriting is concerned, pass as genuine, while others have been strangely tampered with, touched up, or painted over, a modem character being dexterously altered by touches of the pen into a more antique form.'" There is, moreover, a kind of exaggeration in the shape of the letters throughout, difiB.cult, if not impossible, to reconcile with a belief in the genuineness of the hand ; not to mention the frequent and strange juxta-position of stiff Chancery capital letters of the form in use two centuries ago with others of quite a modern appearance, and it is well here to state that all the corrections are evidently by one hand ; and that, consequently, whatever invalidates or destroys the credit of a part must be considered equally damaging and fatal to the whole. At times the correction first put in the margin has been obliterated, and a second emendation substituted in its stead, of which I will mention two examples which occur in Gymbeline (fol. 1632, p. 400, col. 1) : — " With Oakes unshakeable and roaring "Waters," where Oahes has first teen made into Cliffes, and subsequently into Rockes." Again (p. 401, col. 2), " Whose Boors as low as ours : Sleepe Boyes, this gate," " As an instance, I may refer to the play of The Tempest, where the " old corrector," has first written some Ics in mo- dem character, and then, in a different coat of paint, prolonged the downward strokes, so as to give the letters a more ancient form. See also Othello, p. 367 — ^where the g of the stage direction on the groimd, has two tails intersecting one another. " The writer of the article in Notes and Queries, (second Series, vol. is. p. 210), asserts that " Cliffes" is written in pencil, in an antique character, and founds on that fact a charge of dis- ingenuousness against Mr. Hamilton. The assertion only de- monstrates the utter incapacity of the writer to tell one kind of writing from another. A few months apprenticeship to 108 THE PERKINS FOLIO: on the margin (a pencil cross having been made in the first instance) Sleepe is corrected into Sweete, afterwards Sweete has been crossed out, and Stoope written above. There is scarcely a single page throughout the volume in which these obliterations do not occur. At the time they were efiected it is possible the obliteration may have appeared com- plete ; but the action of the atmosphere in the course of some years seems in the majority of instances to have so far nega- tived the chymical agency as to enable the corrections to be readily deciphered. Examples of these accompany this letter, and I shall be surprised if in the hands of Shakspearian critics they do not furnish a clue to the real history of the cor- rector and his corrections. I now come to the most astounding result of these investiga- tions, in comparison vdth which all other fects concerning the corrected folio become insignificant. On a close examination of the margins they are found to be covered with an infinite number of faint pencU. marks and corrections, in obedience to which the supposed old corrector has made his emendations. These pencil corrections have not even the pretence of antiquity in character or spelling, but are vrritten in a bold hand of the present century. A remarkable instance occurs in Cichard ' III. (fol. 1632, p. 181, coL 2), where the stage direction, " with the body", is written in pencil in a clear modem hand, while * i.e. on the over* this the ink corrector writes in the antique and smaller top of. character, "with the dead bodie," the word "dead" being seemingly inserted to cover over the entire space occupied by the larger pencil writing, and " bodie" instead of " body" to give the requisite appearance of antiquity." Further on, in the tragedy of Samlet (fol. 1632, p. 187, col. 1), record-reading might possibly dispel a few of his illusions, which BO happily blind him to every fact which prejudices his friend Mr. Collier. Truth often sufiera from the indulgence of an "amiable weakness." " " The Athenaeum" of Feb. 18th, 1860, devotes a column and THE MUSEUM INQUISITION. 109 "And croote the pregnant Hindges of the knee," " begging," occurs in pencil in the opposite margin in the same modern hand, evidently with the intention of superaeding " preg« a half of the Eeview of Mr. Hamilton's Inquiry, to the proof of the positions that hody is an older orthography than lodie and that the latter mode of spelling did not come into fashion till the reign of Charles II. The establishment of these points is intended as an answer to the following argument. " Bodie," says our Manuscript Department, " is an old form, Body a new form of the Word. Ergo, the rascal who wrote " bodie" in ink upon " body" in pencil must have been a very recent rascal — " still alive" is the charitable supposition, — and his adoption of the ancient spell- ing in his ink is neither more nor less than a fraudulent mys- tification." Having first stated this gloss on Mr. Hamilton's position, (to prepare the reader's mind !) the reviewer proceeds to quote Mr. Hamilton's own words. " On a close examina- tion," (fee. &c. The reviewer makes it appear that Mr. Hamil- ton's inference that the pencil writing is recent, is derived from the modern character of the spelling. But this is not the case. That inference is solely derived from the fact that the pencil writing is " in a bold hand of the present century," Now Mr. Maskelyne has established that the ink writing is over the pencil writing. Therefore the ink writing is of the present century. But it is in a l7th century hand, (or rather it is a mixture of several distinct styles of that century.) There- fore the antique character of the ink writing is not genuine. Now is the spelling consistent with the supposition that the writer assumed the 17th century hand fraudulently ? Tes. Por while the pencil words are always spelled as they are in the present day, the spelling of the ink words corresponding to such pencil words is sometimes obsolete. Thus where the pencil word is lady, the corresponding ink word is bodie. Such a fabri- cator would in all probability have preferred the spelling lodie to H 110 THE PEEKINS FOLIO: nant" in the text. The entire passage from, " Why should the poore be flatter'd ?" to " As I doe thee. Something too much of this" was afterwards struck out. The ink corrector, probably thrown oiF his guard by this, neglected to copy over and afterwards rub out the pencil alteration, according to his usual plan, and by this oTersight we seem to obtain as clear a view of the modus operandi as if we had looked over the cor- rector's shoulder and seen the entire work in process of febri- cation. I give several further instances where the modem pencil writing can be distinctly seen underneath the old ink correction, and I should add that in parts of the volume page after page occurs, in which commas, notes of admiration and interrogation, &c., are deleted, or inserted in obedience to pencil indications of precisely the same modem character and appearance as those employed in correcting the press at the present day. Twelfth Night (fol. 1632, p. 258, col. 1) :— "I take these Wisemen, that crow so at these set kind of fooles, hody (in the ink word). 1st, Because the former was the spelling of the period succeeding the date of the 2nd folio — to which period the " old corrector" professed to belong. 2nd, Because by choosing bodie, rather than lody, he would obviate an objec- tion which might (however untenable) be derived from lody ; for though body is an archaic form, it is also the most modem : whereas bodie is an archaism, and is not modem. This reply is sufficient to rebut the argument of " The Athe- naeum." But I might go still ferther: I might, consistently with facts, deny the writer's statement, that the spelling lody is older than lodie. I believe bodie to be the older form. Cer- tainly both were used indifferently in Shakspere's day. Thus in " Dialogical Discourses of Spirits and Divels," 1601, in the third dialogue (pp. 64 — 98, inclusive), bodie occurs one hundred and twenty three times, and body onlyj^»e times : while in " A Treatise of Specters," &o. 1605, in chapter 5 (pp. 43 — 49), lodie occurs twenty five times, and lody sixty times. THE MUSEUM INQUISITION. Ill no better than the fooles Zanies." The corrector makes it " to he no better than," &c. Here the antique " to be" is writ- ten over a modern pencil " to be" still clearly legible. A few lines further down the letter I is added in the margin over a pencil I. In Hamlet (fol. 1632, p. 278, col. 1) :— " Oh, most pernicious woman !" is made into — " Oh, most pernicious and perfidious woman !" but here, again, the " perfidious" of the corrector can be seen to be above a pencil " perfidious" written in a perfectly modern hand.13 In Samlet (fol. 1632, p. 276, col. 2), the line " Looke too't, I charge you ; come your way," has been altered by the corrector into " Looke too't, I charge you ; so now come your way," in the inner margin. The words " so now," in faint pencil and in a modem hand, on the outer margin, are distinctly visible. Immediately below this, and before " Enter Hamlet, Horatio, Marcellus," the corrector has inserted " Sc. 4." This would seem to have been done in obedience to a pencil " it." in the margin. In Mng John (fol.»l632, p. 6, col. 2), " Austria and France shoot in each other's mouth." The corrector adds, as a direction, at this line " aside ;" the same word " aside" occurs likewise in pencil in a modern hand on the outer margin." This most excellent description of the actual state of the Perkins Folio cannot be too often repeated. " See facsimile facing title-page. H 2 112 THE PEEKINS FOLIO: It is a picture of the actual fact ; and not a state- ment in it has ever been^ or to the best of my judgment can be^ impugned. I have devoted much time to the examination of the once mysterious volume : and though I could from my own original resources give an exact and faithful description of its contents, I am satisfied I could not improve on Mr. Hamilton's portraiture, and therefore avail my- self of his language and examples ; and his infer- ences, drawn with professional skill, and brought forward with as much modesty as is consistent with confidence in his own judgment^ I most conscien- tiously endorse." I will simply call attention to the selection of words and phrases which I have made from the manuscript annotations of the Perkins Folio, for the sheet of facsimiles, no. IV. Here the reader wiU observe several examples of the pencil-writing under- lying the ink; and many more would have been added but for the over-scrupulousness ("hyper- _ , , — _ ^* It is noteworthy that in one' place, viz. Comedies, p. 278, the bottom of the page, comprizing nearly the whole margin, has been cut away with a knife, probably to get rid of some lengthy addition of which the old corrector had repented. Mr. Collier speaks of the book as having suffered from " the falling of the lighted snuff of a candle, or the ashes of tobacco.' ' — {Notes and Hmendations, 1st ed. Introduction, p. vi.) Now at pp. 325-8 in King Lear, it seems to me that the paper has been wilfuUy burnt in order to get rid of some corrections, or stUl more pro- bably of a suspicious erasure. AG-wrMcri' by M'' CclUer in pervdl /err The/ dirtcbxm of hie/iueiniiUst- r (■4. An. Seb. bled I could hvJM Nufkt .page UCcvlJ. M.S. Corredums irv penal k- ink ^nv the Pertarvs FoUo sheet N?iv. Ceo Qro JobH, Mirchanb rrf Venicf, .po/je 161 ul 2 /? Cr (fra. Mtrchanb cf Vemce/. prufi iT5 ccl ? f&) ^G-'Brr. ^f ^oKr ,5 ^^ '^i^^'^Y^ AUi -xfM Tkxxi, eruh -xM ;^y^ jf,^,„^ yj p^f. ; pcuic 2^7. col. i. page m coll Tnc Gentizmm. cf leraru.i. page 36 a-! i f6) i^fi^ I Kin. The extreme pjrcf^f LmM Labour Loil -pagt M aZ. I ^7' SoUthi Kina John pcifjtS crLZ. t"n.) ofFerj 1-ive.l/tliy S'l-qhJ . /jriijf Z14. ruL. 'i JytdHh ytfjht -pcvgt ~'^ ccl . ^^J Surgeon t fend one pre- (^) \%i you broke my head I -i.v \6ndcr flic comes. Mid.fnmmer yicjhls Ih/om. _ ficujr 4^C ml. i * rttjAf vevy nicdti-^imcdj: of inrli.c^^kiivg Tfie. intpj'fum, cf a KiZisJyOp ccarf." en cU.rn/7tT every pago oFUrt Perliiie Ivliti. 'iS Merrluubt cf JhUtX- .pcvgt- 4(1!) ivl / fi/y _^^' -/J^ 9-rn-i-^*- Mercharvb of Venice' j^»^d Shew duty^asmiftak^i^all this while, L/jriclanni^ -.pojfi.56. cuh. ). M And pitch our «tikt here ? oh fie, fie, fie : t^am CcC ■-'■'>} 'i CtrrufJ^' of F.>-ivis. page f)2.ajL'i. ^16' 'J- itk M^'fll" Venice^, pcujf ja/i.iJo/.-.J. '« M. Xujhl}-- Drcnm '. p(U)i' I'lO.ci'l.J. ■Shtrrb-hMn/L in pendi, acccrdiruj Ic Pcdm^ers syshm, 177'f- ( Stru^^les or instead noise j frriolanus. .paqt, 55. ocl. Z . '^V hseWL Xiffhl. pacjei 174: crl. Z. 4Z&3 Ejcampljos of a & cccousianoJly employed hy The/^Old: Ccrrrtdor? 4;6,6,'I8 fc /I9 Eccamplts af pencil' wr-itbejv vuuler- Itve/ inh. 7S9&yi2. £.xaniplos of they "Old Carredxrr's' nvode/ of ccrrecbrvg pwnctuuUtow, in/ pencil & ink Js'l^, Jl5„l6 ic n Eccamples of the- "Old Corrector's" ccrrrMUons ijv perLdL & vnJo . ylO& II Speam^en^ of ihe^ "OUL Correcbor's" slanUng handyvrHing. r.i^tt fc D(mAn^-1i r— — Thm/v. »> V-'-' THE MUSEUM INQUISITION. 113 squeamishness/' Mr. Collier would call it) of Mr. Ashbee, who positively reliised to attempt the fac- simile of any pencil-writing-^ Jiorvever legible, that was not distinct, and as the reader already knows, the great mass of the pencil instructions of the folio are "half obliterated." Mr. CoUier complains'* of Mr. Hamilton for ha\'ing given only Jifteen of the " infinite number " of pencil words and marks. In- stead of that he should have given Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Frederick G. Netherchft credit for not at- tempting the representation of pencil-writing which in thousands of places is very indistinct, even where it is perfectly legible. The question was not " what pencil words can be read ?" but, " what pencil words can be represented by hthography 1" In the sheet referred to the reader will observe traces of th in pencil under the th of the word both ; portions of Enter Duke in pencil under the stage-direction, Miter Duke Angerly, and under the correction ing, for s in the word " parts," are traces of the same cor- rection in pencil, while the pa which protrudes from , the left of the ink correction shews that the whole word parting was first written in pencil. In the stage-direction Venice still, the reader will observe that the " old corrector " has yielded to his habitual inclination to the right, and has thus fallen into the pseudo-antique cursive of the letter signed " S. Danyell," which is given in facsimile in sheet no. IX. " Keply, p. 21. 114 THE PEEKINS FOLIO : Tne funda- Eeviewers of Mr.Hamilton's letters and book, have mental mis- _ J take of Mr. fallen into a strange mistake, which was first corn- White and mitted b}^ Mr. E. Grant White in " The Atlantic "Scrutator." jyjiontbly Advertiser" for October 1859, and has since been repeated, and still more strenuously urged by a ■wTiter who calls himself " Scrutator," in a pamph- let which is characterized only by disingenuousness, feebleness, and inconsequence. The mistake is this. These writers assume that the primal evidence of forgery, in the case of the ink corrections, is the fact that they correspond with pencil-writing, of a more or less modern character, some of which respectively underlie the ink corrections with which they corres- pond. It is then attempted to be shewn either that the pencil- writing may be a cursive of the 17 th century, or that there are two pencil hands, of which the older only is ever found to underlie the ink. It is therefore inferred that, since that pencil-A\Ti- ting, which must have been written before the ink- writing, may be of the 17th century, the ink- writing- itself may be as old as its character would lead one to believe. The primal This is all wrong. The primal evidence of for- fJrge^f gery lies in the ink-writing, and in that alone. All evidence that rests on the judgment of palaeo- graphists is necessarily of a kind which is not sus- ceptible of verification by any but palseogi-aphic experts. If Mr. Hamilton presents his readers with a facsimile by Mr. Frederick G. Netherclift, any one who has an eye and a pair of compasses may. THE MUSEUM INQUISITION. 115 by comparing the facsimile with the original, arrive at an independent judgment on the fidelity of the representation. But if Sir Frederic Madden pro- nounces an opinion that a particular piece of antique- looking writing is not a genuine antique, but a modern simulation, the public have but the alterna- tive of accepting Sir Frederic's ipse dixit, or rejecting his skill as a palseographist. In the case in question, all the palseographists who have examined the ma- nuscript are of one opinion. Sir Frederic Madden, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Hamilton of the British Museum 3 Sir Francis Palgrave, Deputy Keeper of Her Ma- jesty's Public Eecords ; Mr. W. H. Black, formerly Assistant Keeper of ditto, and Mr. T. Duffus Hardy, Assistant Keeper of ditto ; Professor Brewer, Header at the Rolls, and several others of less note, \ have unhesitatingly pronounced the ink- writing spu- / rious, on palaeographic grounds, not a single palseo- graphist having yet ventured to dissent fi'om that decision. This conclusion having been arrived at, the discovery of the pencil-writing, which indeed thi'ows every other feature of this case into the shade, becomes significant. With the knowledge already The second- acquired that the ink- writing is a modern simulation, o-^orgeiy!''* it becomes obvious that the pencil marks and notes are the suggestions for corrections which in the vast majority of cases have been followed. The only motive which could induce a critic to charitably suppose, on the one hand, that the pencil-writing — especially where it underlies the ink (!) —is a cursive 116 THE PEEKINS FOLIO. of the 17 th century, or, on the other, that one hand wrote the corresponding- pencil-writing' (long- after the ink-writing- had heen executed) for pur- poses of interpretation, and that another and an older hand wrote those pencil corrections, which underhe the ink, for the direction of the scribe, — the only conceivable motive for such kindly, but far-strained suppositions vanishes, when we know (as palseographists do), or believe (as the public must do, if they have any faith in palaeography), that, by the ink corrections alone, the fabrication is proved. We are then at liberty to dismiss from our minds the question— how can we reconcile these pencil marks with a belief in the genuineness of the ink corrections ?. and instead, we have to consider how to explain the pencil marks and corrections, on the assumption that the ink corrections are in a simu- Conclusions lated hand. We are thus left to the conclusions of ^a^^i?"^"' our senses, which are these :- questions. igj^ Tjjat all the pencil marks and corrections are in one handwriting. 2nd, That that handwriting is one of our own day. There is as much intrinsic reason for doubtino- these conclusions, as for doubting whether a letter which has been addressed to me by a stranger, is all in one handwriting, and in a handwriting of my own day. CHAPTEE VI. The Peekins roiio. — The weak points in Me. Colliee's Replies eespecting it. As was expected; Mr, Hamilton's assaults on the genuineness of the " old corrector " called Mr. Col- her himself into the field. In reply to the former gentleman's letters^ and that of Professor Maske- lyne^ Mr. CoUier wrote two letters to the editor oi^^- Collier's " The Times/' which were puhKshed in the impres- sions of that Journal of July 7th and 20th, 1859. In the first of these letters he plaintively says, " I am determined not to make the poor remainder of my life miserable by further irritating contests ; this is the last word I shall ever submit to say upon the subject in print ; but if the matter be brought before a proper legal tribunal I shall be prepared in every way to vindicate my integrity." In despite of this somewhat petulant vow, he ^Tites a second letter to " The Times " eight days later j and after the publication of the Inquiry of Mr. Hamilton, he pubhshes two replies, one in "The Athenseum " of Feb. 18th, 1860, and the other in the form of a pamphlet, in order, to use his own words, " that the bane and the antidote may be taken to- gether."* As I cannot reprint these replies at length, I 1 Beply, p. 1. 118 THE PERKINS FOLIO: shall adopt the plan of extracting' from them such remarks as bear upon the various questions involved in the discussion of the Perkins Folio^ allowing aU Mr. Collier's observations on other disputed manu- scripts to stand over for separate examination. In the course of a careful consideration of Mr. Collier's replies^ I have found many points on which his rejoinders are most unsatisfactory^ and some on which they are certainly entitled to weight. I pur- pose to deal with the former class only. With these deductions, the readers of Mr. Collier's replies, so far as they concern the Perkins FoHo, may take them for what they profess to be. The points to which I am bound to except are the following- : — I. The manuscript corrected folio seen by Dr. Wellesley in Rodd's shop. II. The pencil-writing- in the Perkins Folio. III. Mr. Maskeljme's examination of the manu- script notes and emendations of the Perkins Foho. IV. The alleged similarity between the hand- writings in the Bridgewater Folio and the Perkins FoHo. V. The " G. R. and Dutch Lion." VI. Mr. Hamilton's " Hamlet " collations. VII. Mr. CoUier's capacity for fabrication. VIII. The testimony of Mr. Dyce to the excel- lence of the emendations, and Mr. Collier's option What Folio of appropriating them. did Dr. Wei- !• What folio it was that Dr. Wellesley saw at RodJ'eX^ Rodd's shop it is impossible to say with certainty. MR. collier's replies. 119 Dr. Wellesley has informed me that he has inspected the Perkins Folio, and is of opinion, that it is the identical book : but he is not certain ; nor does he speak of any special mark by which he is enabled to establish the identity. But whether there be any such mark or not, we cannot tell, owing to Dr. Wellesley's refusal to be cross-examined. One reason there is which would lead to the be- lief that the Perkins Folio is not the book he saw at E,odd's shop. If, as we learn from the Notes and ^Emendations,^ Mr. Collier took the folio home, it would seem that Dr. Wellesley could not have seen it in Rodd's shop, unless he and Mr. Collier were there together. Mr. Collier did not deviate from this statement till after he had received Dr. Wellesley's letter. Then he writes,* " It so happened, that just after I had left Eodd's, and had secured my purchase by paying for it, leaving the volume to be sent home, the Eev. Dr. H. Wellesley entered the shop, looked at the book, and seeing the MS. notes, which I had not seen, wished to become the possessor. Eodd informed Dr. Wellesley that the old folio had been already sold* for the very price I had given for it." In his Beply^ Mr, CoUier gives us this version of the incident : — " My frequent course was to call at Hodd's on my way from Kensington, to see what he might have that was new and inte- 2 1st Edition, Introduction, p. viL. 3 The Athenaeum, Eeb. 18, 1860. * This is Mr. Collier's constriction, of an ambiguous phrase in Dr. WeUesley's letter. « Page 8. 120 THE PEEKINS FOLIO: resting to me, and if the book or books I had bought were of any size, to go on towards the City, and on my return to carry away my purchase by an omnibus. I did not ordinarily give Bodd the trouble of sending all the way to my house. Such I feel pretty sure was the case with the Perkins folio : I left it in the shop until my return, and then "took it home" with another folio." Without wishing to be hypercritical^ I must say, this looks something like cooking evidence. The ex- pression, " It so happened, that just after — " does not rest on Mr. ColHer's memory (for, by his own account he " had left Eodd's"), nor on the testimony of any one else. Dr. Wellesley is unable to say when it was that he paid Mr. Eodd this visit, on the date of which so much depends. But, says Mr. Collier, it was just after he had left the volume to he sent home. This is testimony ^ro re natA with a vengeance. In Notes and Emendations, Mr. CoUier takes the foHo home. But when Dr. Wellesley's evidence turns up, and it becomes possible to make that gentleman's visit synchronize with Mr. Collier's departure from Eodd's shop, then the testimony undergoes a rifacimmto ; and it then turns out, that Mr. Collier left the folio behind him : else how could Dr. Wellesley have seen it then and there ? When Mr. Collier wrote his letter to " The Athen- aeum," he forgot having said in his Notes and JEmen- ! dations that he took the book home. His attention having been called to the discrepancy, he finds that he left the book in Eodd's shop until his return from the city, and then took it home ! What is this but MR. collier's replies. 121 an ex post facto history? In theolog-y it is called a harmony. But Mr. Collier's hypothesis fails to harmonize one discrepancy. If the book were left to be called for, it was not left to be sent home. II. Mr. Collier nearly goes the length of denying The fact and the very existence of pencil-writing in the Perkins pencU-writ-^ Foho :— "^g- " "What I mean to say is, that if such specks and spots of plumbago be made, there is no word in our language to which, with tHe smallest ingenuity, they may not be adapted."* He says " made," because he will hardly admit that they have been Jbvnd. Again : — ^ " All I maintain is that the pencil-marks are so few, so small, and so indistinct, that it is only by the exercise of the most tortuous ingenuity that they can be transformed into words and letters ;" It is useless and childish to contend with facts. In reply to these denials of Mr. Collier'Sj I need only cite three writers on his own side. — Mr. H. Merivale* writes thus : — " But then the mysterious pencil marks ! There they are, most imdoubtedly, and in very great numbers too." The " Saturday" reviewer^ assumes their existence, though he very grossly errs in saying that they are not legible to the naked eye. " Scrutator" says, " The presence of the pencU no one who has examined the book lately, at least with the aid of a glass, has denied.""" « Eeply,p. 21. 7 Reply, p. 26. 8 The Edinburgh E«view, Ap. 1860. 9 April 21, 1860. lo Strictures, p. 7. 122 THE PERKINS FOLIO: It is impossible to doubt that Mr. Collier really believes in the existence of the pencillings ; else why should he nearly go the length of charging the officers of the Museum with having first inserted them, and then seduced Mr. Frederick Gr. Nether- clift to torture them into words in imitation of Mr. Collier's handwriting ?" At any rate he is sure he never wrote in pencil in the folio. He writes : — '^ " I never made a single pencil mark on the pages of the book, excepting crosses, ticks, or lines, to direct my attention to par- ticular emendations." And he further says,'* " If there be upon the volume any penciUinga by me, beyond crosses, ticks, and lines, they wiU. speak for themselves ; they have escaped my recollection," This is certainly a very curious instance of defect of memory. The simple fact is that, irrespective of pencil emendations, notes, and suggestions, of which I shall speak hereafter, Mr. Collier has made very free with the margins of the book, in writing upon them in pencil such remarks as most editors, and all methodical ones confine to their common-place books. I have never kept any strict account of these re- marks ; but, to substantiate my assertion, I have jotted down a few of them, which will serve as a sample of the mass, whose name is " legion." " Eeply, p. 23. " The Times, July 7th, 1860. " The Times, July 20th, 1859. MR. collier's replies. 123 Measure for Measure p. 70. c. 2 fire note this. Love's Labour's Lost. p. 133. c. 2/asting | I See Hamlet. 277. „ p. 139. c. 1 kiWd by | kingly See above " pure scoflFe". All'swell that endswell. p. 234. c. 2. to.A.success I try So 1623 „ p. 256. c. 2. and beare bating | yet see 273 Hamlet. p. 277. c. 2. fast in | lasting See LLL 133. This is in Smith's — 1765. That all these pencil ohservations and scores of others are in Mr. Collier's handwriting I cannot for an instant doubt, as they are obviously in the same hand in which the notes on the last board are written, and these Mr. Collier acknowledges to have been written by himself.^* It must be borne in mind that all such pencil observations are of a distinct class from those which are connected with the ink notes and emendations, or those which appear to be suggestions for emendations not actually adopted. All I wish to say of these in this place is that inasmuch as Mr. Collier's memory has been shewn to be fallacious in respect of the one class, surely it may be so in respect of the other. It is of the latter class that Mr. Collier endeavours to discredit the existence at the time the book was in his possession. He writes: — " " I exhibited the Perkins folio by candle light and by day- light," and it was turned about in every possible direction by » Letter to The Times of July 7th, 1860. " Eeply, p, 25. " " It was not perhaps convenient," writes Mr. Collier, (Eeply, p. 10) to Mr. Hamilton, " to notice this daylight eihi- 124 THE PERKINS FOLIO: those who inspected it, and I never heard of an individual who saw pencil-marks, untQ after the volume had been deposited in the Manuscript Department of the British Museum." We are further told that Mr. Collier never saw any pencil marks while the Perkins Folio was in his hands ;" that the late Duke of Devonshire never saw any, nor a certain "intelligent Shakespearian friend" of Mr, Collier's^ nor Mr. Netherclift, senior ; nor yet were they observed at the meeting's of the Shakspeare Society or the Society of Antiquaries in 1852-3." But surely all these statements are consis- tent Avith Mr. Hamilton's theory. Do they not actually form a part of it ? Of course, if Mr. Colher, as has been insinuated^ did fabricate the-notes, having previously written in the pencil directions^ he would surely have rubbed out the latter (i. e. for a time have rendered them invisible); before exhibiting the foHo for any one's inspection, or inviting scrutiny to the manu- script notes. The fact that the pencillings were invi- sible in 1863-3, is quite consistent with the fact that they became visible again after the lapse of five or six years : for what is called rubbing out, is merely re- moving some portions of the plumbago, and rubbing up the fibre of the paper over the other portions of the plumbago. The atmosphere which affects the fibre bition at all." The fact is, that no report of such an exhibi- tion has been found. All we have is Mr. Collier's invitation in " The Athenaeum," March 27, 1852, and his mention of three exhibitions, before the Society of Antiquaries, in his affidavit. " Eeply, p. 24. " Eeply, pp. 25 and 26. MB. collier's replies. 135 of the paper^ will^ it is well knowiij disclose some of the plumbago so covered over : and thus " Time will unfold what plighted cunning hides ;" and pencil writing which has been rubbed out may after a few years become legible again. Mr. Collier has another method of discrediting the pencillings : — " Is it not strange," he asks, " if pencil-marks can be pointed out, as supposed instructions for such words, and fragments of words, as Mr. Hamilton has given us, that not the smallest trace of pencil is to be found in connexion with the entire lines, sentences, and parts of sentences, which abound in the Perkins folio ?"«' He then goes on to shew that this circumstance fa- vours the supposition of the officers of the British Museum having fraudulently^ inserted^ in pencU^ ^^ specks and spots for the purpose of discrediting the ink emendations/' inasmuch as it would have been easy to have applied them as hints for a litho- grapher in forming short words, but impossible to have done so by whole lines and sentences.^' Mr. =" Eeply, p. 23. " Mr. Collier's insinuations and charges of fraud against his 'opponents are none the less discreditable to himself because, " more suo" he qualifies them by such phrases as " I only sup- pose it," or "I cannot for a moment suppose," &c., or "I do not at all mean purposely," or " I do not impute it," or " I am bound here to acquit," &c., or " unknowingly I believe," and various other " shows" of the like flimsy texture. They do not serve to dissemble the malice of his charges ; bat they amply protect the writer against actions at law, which, I conceive, was one reason why they were displayed, I 136 THE PERKINS folio: CoUier must have taken leave of his senses if he sup- posed that by retorting' the charge of fraud, merely by way of speculation and without adducing any evidence; he could divert the public eye from the facts of this case^ and their bearing on his own cha- racter. The pubhc; as I have found from experience, are slow to believe anything that discredits the good name of a public man : hut when once their suspicions are aroused, no legerdemain can distract their atten- tion : they are then exacting judges of evidence, and unrelenting censors of him whom that evidence con- demns. Nor will pubhc connexions or private friend- ships avail him long : — " "When Fortunes in her shift and change of mood, Spurns down her latie belov'd, all his dependents "Which labour' d after him to the mountain's top, Even on their knees and hands, let him slip down. Not one accompanying his declining foot." Putting aside Mr. Collier's irrelevant retort, it is easy to answer his objection. It is not the length but the fewness of the " whole lines and sentences," that, in all pi'obability, occasions the absence of the pencil- lings. A corrector using his pencil, as Mr. Collier and many others have done before, and will do again, would find it necessary to pencil in the short correc- tions as a guide to the ink scribe (himself or another) because they are so exceedingly numerous (from twenty to thirtj"^ thousand), while the " whole lines and sentences," amounting only to eleven in all, would be more conveniently inserted from pencil riders. This MR. collier's replies. 187 would be far preferable to writing' so much in pencil on a single margin, the obliteration of which might be difficult or even impossible, and the detection of which would be the ruin of the speculation. Surely this is the true, as it is the obvious, explanation. III. But Mr. Collier would have us beheve that. Inferences even admitting that the pencillings are bond Jide, Maakelyne's and of a modern character, it has never been satis- of X^MsT factorily shewn that they underhe the ink. Mr. '^°*®^' Collier writes : — ^^ " He [Prof. Maskelyne] is mysteriously great upon the question, whether iu some places the pencil overlies the ink, ot the ink the pencil, apparently forgetting that if the pencil mark overlies the ink, the pencil matk must have heen made last :[!] he admits, however, vdthout reserve, that ' in several places the pencil stops abruptly at the inh.' Is not this decisive ? Why does it " stop abruptly at the ink," but because the ink had been previously written, and the person who made the pencil- mark went no further than the ink would allow him ? Truly, all this discussion about " the lustre of the plumbago," and about the plumbago "just traceable under the ink," is too paltry and puerile for a man of Mr. Maskelyne' s scientific attainments ; and it almost makes one smile to read his grave and authorita^ tive denunciation of the U in Sichard II., and of the " tick" which " intersects each limb of that letter." If as, he tells us, the pencil sometimes stops at the ink, there is an end of the question, as far as every word so circumstanced is concerned." Not at all. Mr. Maskelyne instances the case of " auia Richard II." "A pencil tick," he says, " crossed the tt, intersecting each limb of that letter. The pencil was barely visible through the *" Eeply, p. 27. I 2 128 THE PERKINS FOLIO: first stroke, and not at all visible under the second strolce of tlie u. On damping oif the ink in the first stroke, however, the pencil mark became much plainer than before, and even when as much of the ink-stain as possible was removed the pencil still runs through the ink line in unbroken even continuity. Had the pencil been superposed on the ink, it must have lain superficially upon its lustrous surface and have been removed in the washing.'"" Here then is a case in which the pencil line stopped abruptly at the ink, as to one limb of the «, and yet must have been written before that limb was written, because that pencil line was found to underhe the other limb of the u. TTie question IV. Mr. Hamilton states that the manuscript the writer of Corrections in the Bridg-ewater FoHo, yC in the Per- " ^^^ '^°* '''^V modern, but, decidedly, hy the same hand as i tins Folio _ those in his [Mr. Collier's] more famous copy of the second and the wri- j... ,,04 terofthe edition. »^ theBridgS To use '^Scrutator's" elegant phrase, Lord EUes- water Folio, mere " has knocked over one of the nine-pins/' in the following' words, for permission to make use of which Mr. Collier thanks his Lordship : — " There is no pretence, whatever, for saying that the emen- dations in the Perkins Shakespeare are in the same handwriting as those in my first folio : on the contrary, except as they are (or profess to be) of the same period, they are quite different."^ But I have authority for stating- that this is a g-arbled extract from the opinion which Lord EUes- mere wrote for Mr. Collier, and which (in its pei'- fect state) he permitted Mr. Collier to make public. " Letter in The Times of July 16, 1859. " Inquiry, p. 72. ^ Reply, p. 45. MB. collier's ueplies. 189 But even if it were Lord EUesmere's ung'arbled opinion of the writing-, what is it worth ? Lord EUesmere is entitled to his own opinion on the sub- ject, and with that I have no wish, as I have no right, to interfere. The question, however, for the public to consider is this— Is Lord EUesmere a better judg-e of handwriting' than the skilled paleeo- graphists of the British Museum ? Is it likely he can be ? But to settle once for all the point of like- ness or unlikeness between the manuscript of the Perkins Folio and that of the Bridgewater Folio, I have given facsimiles of both in illustration of what appear to me some striking features of resem- blance.^" V. We have seen that Mr. Hamilton found on TKe date of the paper pasted within the cover of the Perkins mark in tie Folio the watermark of " a crown surmounting the ^i||f °^*^® letters " G. R." and the Dutch lion within a paling, with the legend pro patrid." In addition to what he says of this device in his first letter in "The Times," he writes, in his Inquiry:-^'' " I have recently investigated this point minutely, and ain of opinion that tlie binding is even later than I had at first ima- gined. Paper of the same texture, and with the same water- mark, was in eommon use from 1760 to 1780. See Haldimand Correspondence, in the British Museum. I have seen a water, mark almost identical in Dutch foolscap of the present day." The point is not of much importance. But Mr. Col- ""' See sheet of facsimiles, no. II. =" Page 133. 130 THE PERKINS FOLIO: lier has hung- upon it a charge of dishonesty against the officers of the Manuscript Department. He says,—'' " The fly-leaf, witli its " G. E. and Dutch Lion," so exultingly dwelt upon by Mr. Hamilton, may easily have been inserted even later ; but later or earlier, it has been abstracted from the looh ; and vrhen it came from the Manuscript Department, no fly-leaf- was found in it. I do not deny the " G. E." nor the « Dutch Lion ;" but, for aught that appears, all this was a pure invention by Mr. Hamilton. He, or somebody else, has de- prived us of the means of testing his assertion : as his " calf" has been metamorphosed into a " sheep,'"" so his " G. E." may by this time have been turned into C. E., and his "Dutch Lion " into an English one. Hence possibly, the present ab- sence of the fly-leaf." Here is a charge of theft,— theft of the most odious kind ; purloining a fly-leaf, because it bore evidence against an opinion to which the purloiner had committed himself. With such apparent reck- lessness does Mr. Collier prefer the most serious charges against the character of a rising writer, whose only ofi*ence is that he has been inconveniently zealous in investigating the origin of various manu- scripts which, according to his opinion, have for years vitiated the biography and corrupted the lan- guage of Shakspere. Now on what do Mr. Col- lier's charges rest? On the absence from the '' Eeply, p. 28. ® This remark is in allusion to Mr. Hamilton's second let- ter, where he gives it as his revised ojHnion that the binding was not in calf but shpep. MR. collier's replies. 131 Perkins Folio of a fly-leaf to which Mr. Hamilton expressly referred in his first letter in " The Times." What are the facts t In that letter Mr. Hamilton did not refer to any fly-leaf. His words are : — " The volume is bound in rough calf (probably about the middle of George II. 's reign), the water-mark of the leaves pasted inside the cover being a crown" &c. In his second letter he corrects the expression "rough calf," and describes the binding as in "rough sheep." "The fly-leaf with its 'G. K. and Dutch lion/" is an ex post facto invention of Mr. OolUer's. It is ingenious, as it enables him to retort a charge of purloining and dishonesty against Mr. Hamilton, and no doubt has had its effect with general readers, for whom it was expressly intended. It is sufficient to say that Mr. Hamilton never mentioned a fly-leaf at all : that the Perkins Folio had no flj'^-leaf when it left the hbrary at Devonshire House : but that " the leaves pasted inside the cover," are stiU there to witness to the " Gr. K. and the Dutch lion." VI. No reader of Mr. Hamilton's book, who The bearing has the shghtest interest in the Perkins Folio, ^«^\lt^^a6^\on feel otherwise than grateful to him and Mr. Staunton ^'^■■^^; ^ for the table of the " Hamlet " collations. We have quiry on the /. -1 c ,1 -i-> 1 • -n T question of divers versions of the contents ot the Perkms Jb oho forgery. from the pen of Mr. Collier, from not one of which is it possible to gather a correct notion of the book. The collations of that single play are a per- fect picture of the contents of the original, and a just sample of the other plays in that volume. Eead that table through, and you will have a thoroughly 138 THE PERKINS FOLIO: correct notion of the whole book. Irrespective of the question of g-enuineness of the manuscript notes^ the table is of the g-reatest value. But it has a bearing' on that question also^ which Mr. Collier fails to perceive. On the " twenty-two pag-es with the Old Oorrrector's emendations of ' Hamlet/ " [and he should have added King Henry VI. Part II.] he remarks/" " all that were really important [have] been pointed out eight years ago. What bearing this useless repetition can have upon the question of authenticity, it would puzzle abler men than Mr. Hamilton to explain. His real object was only to prove my omissions ;" It isj indeed^ true that these collations have not, nor were they intended to have, any direct bearing- on the authenticity or genuineness of the Perkins manuscript notes. Their indirect bearing- is soon shewn. Mr. Collier, as we have seen, calls the List of Emendations appended to the Seven Lectures, 1856, " A list of every manuscript note and emenda- tion" &c. ; and in the Preface to the same work, he speaks of this list as complete, and challeng-es his readers to find so much as a single omission. The fact is, as I have ah-eady shewn, that his Complete List does not contain half the notes and emendations which are legible in the Perkins Folio. Mr. Hamil- ton's object, clearl3', \\as not merelj^ to prove Mr. Collier's omissions, but to substantiate one of two things : either that the Perkins Folio had received ™ The Alhenajiim, Feb. 18, 18G0. See also Eeply, p. 23. MR. collier's replies. 183 large additions since 1866, or that Mr. Collier had deliberately and systematically stated what he must have known to be untrue ; and I can only assume that Mr. Collier would accept the latter alternative ; for he assures us that the omissions were intentional: and from this it would appear that he does not regard the want of veracity as a very serious defect.^* The indirect bearing of this alternative on the questions of authenticity and genuineness is this: If the first alternative be true, more than half the emendations are not older than 1856 ; and the rest, being in the same hand, are thus proved to be modern fabrications : If the second alternative be true, no statement of Mr. Collier's can be beHeved. " Mr. Collier's notions of right and wrong seem very dif- ferent from those of other honest men. Thus, at p." 53 of his Reply, he says, " "Whatever I may be, in the opinion of my adversaries, I feel sure that he [Malone] ■vras a man of honour and principle ;" having first told us (p. 47), that his (Malone's) books, " the title pages of vrhieh he decorated with the old auto- graphs [which he had cut from the Dulwich manuscripts], had belonged to Dulwich College; for he contrived to persuade the Master, "Warden and Fellows, of that day, that Old Plays and Old Poetry did not half so well become their shelves, as the musty divinity, dull chronicles, and other volumes of the same sort which he substituted. Hence the bulk of his collection ; and he must have chuckled amazingly at his success in per- suading unsuspecting people to make an exchange of works, which would sell for hundreds of pounds, for others not worth so many shillings." That is, according to Mr. Collier, a man may be a swindler, and at the same time be " a man of honour and principle" ! 134 THE PERKINS FOLIO: One of the two must be true. Either is fatal to Mr. Collier's pretensions for his folio. Apart from VII. Mr. Collierj of course, repudiates the charge question, of fabricating the manuscript notes, &c. He says/^ could Mr. Collier have " I have had too much to do with my own plain round Eng- wT^en the jjgjj jjand (from which I never, even for a playful purpose, attempted to vary) to be able to devote my time to the manu- facture of public or private documents, and, as in the case of the Perkins Polio, to fiU a volume of about a thousand pages with innumerable notes, to say nothing of changes of punctua- tion in tens of thousands of places." The statement in the parenthesis is untrue, if we may believe what Mr. Collier himself tells us in the Preface to the Seven Lectures, 1856.^' He there says, " My father taught me at an early age the use of abbreviated characters, and I hardly know any species of instruction that in after-life has stood me in greater stead," To write short-hand is surely to vary from his " own plain round Enghsh hand." " Neither," he writes," " have I ever enjoyed facilities abso- lutely necessary to such elaborate trickery. In five out of the eight houses I have occupied, -since I married forty-five years ago, I never had a study to myself : * * and when I have had a study, I defy the world to show an instance in which I ever turned the key of the door to prevent intrusion :" Where was the occasion ? For he says in the same letter : — " For many years I seldom went to bed until other people were rising," Tbe Athenajum, Eeb. 18, 1860. *■ p. v. " The Atbenasum, Feb. 18, 1860. ME. collier's beplies. 136 And for other facilities, he informs us that he was an adept in removing ink-stains^ an art so pro- fusely displayed by the " old corrector," though time has often undone him in that respect. He says, " I myself have taken envelopes sent from different hemis- pheres east and west, and have obliterated the addresses hy the simplest application."* However innocent Mr. Collier may be of the charge of fabrication, surely these replies cannot be said to give his case a better complexion. VIII. In his letter pubHshed in "The Times " What is the r -r ^ n ,-> -ll/r /-^ ^^• • value of Mr. 01 July 7, 1859, Mr. Comer writes: — Dyoe's testi- mony, and " I shall say nothing of the indisputable character of many of that of other the emendations. The Eev. Mr. Dyce has declared, in his own critics, to the excellence oi handwriting, that " some of them are so admirable that they the MS. can hardly be conjectural," and, in the course of his recent im- emenda- pression of the works of Shakespeare, he has pronounced such as he imavoidably adopted, irresistible, indubitable, infallible, &e." Now, to this I must say that whatever weight may be accorded to the opinion of so ripe a scholar as Mr. Dyce, I do not see how it becomes overwhelm- ing, or irrevocable, because he has written it down ! Mr. Dyce's opinion, however, on more than one of the Perkins emendations, has been revoked.^® Surely a critic may change his opinion, despite the litera scripta. Special and plausible emen- dations generally provoke love at first sight, and ensure a favourable reception, too often a hasty adoption. But these are just the very emendations " lleply, p. 55. " Dyce's Few Notes, p. 81. 136 THE PERKINS FOLIO : which are generally treated as paramours — em- braced as sources of gratification, and cast off as sources of corruption. Mr. Halliwell and the late Mr. Singer have been as susceptible to the charms of the Lights of the Perkins Har^m as Mr. Dyce himself, and with a hke speedy repentance.^^ But Mr. Dyce has in his edition of Shakspere, finally adopted several of the Perkins novelties. No doubt of it. But he has adopted, besides some novelties which are indisputable and undisputed/* others which many critics believe to be utterly wrong; and some which are the cast-offs of Messrs. Halli- well and Singer. So that Mr. Dyce's judgment, even as to the few which he has finally adopted, is far fi"om conclusive evidence that those few are worthy to remain in the text. Could Mr. But Mr. Collier continues : — Collier have appropriated. " AH this I might have appropriated to myself ; and having them_by jj^^^^ ^j^g corrected folio, 1632, I might have established for foHo in the myself a brighter Sbakespeariaa reputation than aU the com- ^^* ™- mentators put together." The answer to this is obvious. Mr. Collier could not, by having in the first instance destroyed the Perkins Folio, have appropriated to himself the vast bulk of the manuscript emendations therein, simply because the vast bulk of them are not new. As to " Notes and Queries, 1st Series, vol. v. pp. 436, 485, 556, and the Editions of Halliwell and Singer. ^ Such as " continue tltem,^' vice " continue then,''' in Looe's Labour's Lout, act v. sc. 2. ME. collier's replies. 137 those which are new^ how many of them does Mr. Collier believe that^ in that case, the editors would have adopted of absolute necessity into the text ? I say ' of absolute necessity/ " because " — I quote from Mr. Arnold's first article in " Eraser's Magazine" — ^' " corrupt as the text of Shakespeare is acknowledged to be in many places, few editors would venture to incorporate con- jectural emendations, except in passages where no sense could be made of the original; or where the alteration manifestly recommends itself by its harmony with the context, and the small amount of violence done by it to the printed text. Very few of Mr. Collier's emendations are of this character ; but even as to those of less value, when they are brought forward with the stamp of authority, we accept them, perhaps too blindly, though often with reluctance, because we feel the authority is too strong to contend against." But destroy the source of the presumed autho- rity, i. e. annihilate the authority^ and all these emendations " of less value," are at once rejected : and with the few strag-glers that would then remain, no editor or critic, not even one of Mr. Collier's " stuiFed sufficiency," could create the reputation of a Jackson or a Beckett. Mr. Collier puts the case somewhat differently in hisEeply:-'" " To have suggested them would have made the fortune of any man ; and, if I were the real author of them, what could Lave induced me to Joist them into an old folio and to give any- body else the credit of them?" The answer is simply this ; that of the emendations that are new, very fern indeed are of the indis- January, 1860. *" Page 63. 138 THE PERKINS FOLIO: putable character. For the mass of those that were new, Mr. Collier, if he had invented them, could not have obtained any consideration, unless he had in- vested them with the prestige of authority. By foisting them into an old folio he might, certainly, have given to emendations which, regarded as con- jectures, are bad enough^ sufficient weight with those who accepted the authority, to supplant really sound conjectural emendations, and, in most cases, to supersede a better reading which was already in possession of the old printed text. And besides this, he might, by a like insertion, have traded on the gross capital of all the commentators that ever lived, by putting a prodigious number of their emenda- tions on the margin of his folio (as the " old cor- rector " has done) ; while the new emendations would scarcely have afforded him a basis for a reputation that could vie with even the third-rate editors, such as Hanmer, or the third-rate commentators, such as Grey. This is capable of direct proof. Mr. ColHer is not just or accurate in speaking of his rival editors. He says, — ■" " Mr. Singer inserted many with very grudging acknow- ledgment, and adopted others, as if they were his own im- provements : Mr. Knight behaved in a more straightforward way, but availed himself of them. The Eev. Mr. Dyce Las been driven to the hard necessity of doing nearly the same, with this salvo, that in order to discredit the Perkins folio, he has asserted, unknowingly I believe, [!] that some of the best changes of the text were contained in Mr. Singer's corrected V " Eeply, p. G3. MR. collier's replies. 189 folio, when Mr. Singer never had a corrected folio that pre- sented them, or anything like them." # * * [speaking of " diseases " for degrees, " mirror' dj' for married, and two other emendations]" " The two first of these changes of text the Kev. A. Dyce vindicates on the ground, that they are supported by corrections in Mr. Singers folio, as well as in the Perkins folio, when the fact is that Mr. Singer's folio has neither of them." Now the fact seems to be this : when Mr. Singer found an emendation in his own corrected foho^ he gave the emendation on that authority ; and he no where, as far as I know, ever published any of the Perkins emendations as his own. Nor did Mr. Dyce put forth his statements respecting these emenda- tions without authority : both diseases for " degrees," and mirror'd for " married," are stated by Mr. Singer to be in his corrected foKo, Mr. CoUier's rash contradiction notwithstanding.*' As to the value of these two emendations and several others which Mr. Collier has promoted to the rank of stalking-horses, I shall have much to say in support of my opinion that they are all inad- missible, and nearl}'' all prima facie bad. Mr. Col- lier not unnaturally regards these and many others with admiration, "li I forged them," he urges, " Eeply, p 65. « See Singer's Shakespeare Vindicated, pp. 112 and 198 : at the same time, I must be allowed to express my surprise that the puhlic have not heard anything of this corrected folio since Mr. Singer's death, though his large and valuable library has been brought to the hammer. 140 THE PERKINS FOLIO. " the least they [his opponents] can do is to g-ive me credit for them."*'' But unfortunately this wide concession can hardly be g-ranted, inasmuch as the great bulk of them belong' to the various editors and commentators of Shakspere, both old and new. Those that Mr. Colher has a title to he will certainly have the credit of. They will be found at pp. 194 and 195 of this work. As to these, Mr. Perkins might have used towards Mr. Collier the words of the late Earl of Ellesmere, when his Lordship forced the Bridgewater manuscripts upon him : " They are as much yours as mine ; consider and treat them as your own." " Eeply, p. 32. CHAPTER VII. The Perkins Folio. — Philological Tests. So soon as the manuscript corrections of Mr. Test-words CyoUier s folio, 1632, were promulgated, verbal critics plirases. cast about for such intrinsic indications of genuineness or spuriousness as those corrections might present. The obvious method of testing the genuineness of the corrections was to select a word or phrase which had the appearance of being modern in sense, or idiom, and by an induction of instances in which the word is em- ployed by writers of the last two centuries to prove, or at least to attempt to prove, the negative, that such word or phrase was not in use at aU, or in a parti- cular sense, till a certain period ; and of course if that period were subsequent to the ostensible date of the manuscript notes, the " old corrector" would be degraded into a modern simulator. Nothing is so slippery as the proof of a negative. In the case of the fabrications of Chatterton,as in those of the Irelands, the spelling alone ought to have been suflScient evidence of fraud ; but in the absence of a knowledge of obsolete orthography, the frequent recurrence of yts or its ought still to have been conclusive evidence of the spuriousness of the ma- The test- ■^ . ., , word its ap- nuscripts. In this case the negative was susceptibJe plied to the of proof, and has since been proved. It is this : geries. the genitive its does not occur in English litera- K 142 THE PERKINS FOLIO : ture till 162S. The first folio of Shakspere is the earliest dated printed book in which the word is found. Thus : — " How sometimes Nature will betray it^s folly ? Ifs tendemesse ? and make it selfe a Pastime To harder bosomes ?" — Winter's Tale, act i. sc. 2. Dean Trench greatly understates the fact when he says he behevesit occurs but three times in all Shak- spere.' Pemble, who died in the year 1 623, employs the word in his works, 1635, p- 171, "If faith alone by its own virtue and force," &c. if we may trust the fidelity of the editor. In aU the printed books that have been searched having- a date prior to 1633, and they are legion, his, her, hit or it, are employed in the sense of the genitive its.^ Now in Vortigern and Rowena, its occurs four times, in act i. alone ; viz. " its master-piece," " its nourisher," " its golden rays," and " its instinct ;" and neither his, her, hit, or it, in the sense of the genitive its, ever occiu's at all. Its then is a test-word that conclusively proves that the Ireland manuscript was of a later date than 1633, a conclusion sufiicient to prove it a forgery of the last century. But though < English Past and Present, 1855, p. 91. * I am aware that the dateless quarto of Hamlet, in the line, « It lifted up it head,"— (Act i. sc. 2.) has its for the second " it." But before that case can be cited against my position it must be proved that the quarto in ques- tion was printed before 1622, which I do not believe. It is generally assigned to the date 1607, on the strength of an entry in the books of the Stationers' Company, which seems to me to refer to the missing quarto of 1G09. PHILOLOGICAL TESTS. 143 this point was missed in the case of the Ireland for- Other tests g-eries, yet others quite as conclusive were seized fandForge- upon. Malone had a test-word or test-phrase for '^^®^' nearly every document he examined. Thus^in a "Deed of Gift to William Henry Ireland " is a narrative of a water adventure in which the drunken watermen " upsette" the barge. Of this word Malone says, "it has crept into our language, I think, within these few years, but certainly within this century ;"' Rolls and tea, hrynge forward, and many others, were similarly employed by him as instruments for the detection of forgery. In like manner might the scholars of Berlin have A test-phrase p -t 1 • • ^ n ,1 . p ,^ for the Ura- round conclusive evidence oi the spunousness or the nius forgery, palimpsest of Uranius, to which I have abeady ad- verted ; for the manuscript contained the phrase Kar ifirjv iSeau, which, in the intended sense of " according to my idea,"* does not occur in any Greek writer of the age of Uranius, or bf any earlier time. But, strange as it may seem, the phrase did not arouse the suspicions of those scholars.* Now it was proposed to do by the manuscript notes in the Perkins Folio just what in these cases had or should have been attempted. s Inquiry, 1796, p. 219. * That is, we ifioiye Soxei. Oddly enough the word idea was a test-word selected by Malone for proving the modem origin of the verses to Queen Elizabeth (one of the Ireland forgeries) where the line occurs — " No words the bright idea can pourtraye." Inquiry, 1796, p. 100, note. 6 The Athenseum, Feb. 16, 1856. K 2 Mr test- 144 THE PERKINS FOLIO *, . Singer's The late Mr. Sing-er once tlioug-ht he had found a satisfactory test-word in wJieedling, into which the manuscript corrector unAvarrantably alters " wheel- ing-/' in Othello, act i. sc. 1 : — " Tying her duty, wit and fortunes To an extravagant and wheeling stranger Of here and everywhere :"* but, as Mr. Collier cautiously observes of this and some other words, " it is not impossible, * * * that the}"" were in earlier use than our lexicogTaphers represent."' In fact Samuel Butler employs it — ^ " His business was to pump and wheedle" P. ii. c. iii. 1. 335. and, " Which ralliers in their wit or drink Do rather wheedle with than think." P. iii. c. i. 1. 759-60. A book, called The Art of Wheedling or Insinuatimi, was pubhshed in 1679; and I believe it will be found that the verb to wJieedle occurs in works pub- lished long anterior to these. Mr. Stann- Another attempt to apply a test-word to the ma- xon s test- word. nuscript corrections was made by Mr. Staunton. He long' ago suggested to me that the emendation of thirst, vice " first," in Coriolanus, act ii. sc. 1,® was indicative of a recent origin of the manuscript corrections. This criticism rests on these assump- * Kotes and Emendations, 1st ed. p. 449 ; 2nd ed. p. 467. — The Text of Shakspere Vindicated, 1853, p. 279. 7 Introduction to Ist ed. of Notes aad Emendations, note. 8 Hudibras, 1663. ' Notes and Emendations, Ist ed. p. 351 ; 2nd ed, p. 355. PHILOLOGICAL TESTS. 145 tions : — Ist, that " complaint'' in the sense of malady, (i. e. the medical sense) was not in use till after the middle of the eighteenth century ; and Sndly, that the phrase " said to be something imperfect in favour- ing the thirst complaint/' would be nonsense, unless " complaint" were there employed in the medical sense. Now I think the latter position indisputable ; but I have not examined a sufficiently large number of instances to arrive at any decided opinion on the former point. However it is not improbable that this test-word may ultimately be found to be of , great value in the determination of the question of the genuineness of the manuscript notes of the dis- puted foho. Mr. HaUiwell remarks'" that the word drench, Mr. Halli- ' well B test- which the "old corrector" substitutes for " dregs" in word. a passage in The Tempest, act ii. sc. 2, " till the dreffs of the storm be past." " appears to be mare modern than Shakespeare's time." Unless it can be shewn that it is more mo- . dern than the second folio, it wiU be of no use as a test-word. Mr. Dyce" has a similar argument on the " old M^r. Dyce's , „ , . n ^ T test-word. cori-ector s" alteration of the une, " This unheard sauciness and boyish troops," £iny John, act v. sc. 2. " Observations on some of the Manuscript Emendations, &c. 1853, p. 8. " Strictures on Mr. Collier's New Edition of Shakspere, pp. 97-98. 146 THE PERKINS FOLIO: The " old corrector"'^ substitutes of for " and," ap- parently under the impression that " unheard" meant unheard-of! The line then would mean — tlie King does not fear harm from this unheard-of sauciness of troops composed of mere boys. This " old cor- rector/' then, was not old enough to know that in Shakspere's day, and even later, "unheard" was merely a mode of speUing unhair'd. *^Unhair'd sauciness/' then, does not require the conjunction, which " unheard-of sauciness" does. Various Again : those who accept either Mr. Staunton's reading,'' or Johnson's first interpretation of the soldier's speech in Timon of Athens, actv. sc. 4, and especially of the two Unes : — " Timon is dead, who hath outstretched his span, Some beast read this : there does not live a man." — wlU doubtless found an argument against the anti- quity of the Perkins Foho, upon the substitution of Warburton's rear'd, for " read."" For myself I en- tertain no doubts that, sooner or later, this argxmaent win be conclusive against the antiquity of the manu- script notes. But until the leading critics are unani- mous in accepting the old text, the substitution of '° Notes and Emendations, 1st and 2nd ed. p. 210. " Edition of Shakspere» vol. ii. p. 503. " Notes and Emendations, 1st ed. p. 394 ; 2nd ed. p. 405. Mr. Dyce, I trust, will be the last editor to adopt that most execrable suggestion. Erom Mr. Dyce's note, I can hardly think the alteration satisfactory even to himself. PHILOLOGICAL TESTS. 147 course proves nothing' to the piibhc against the an- tiquity of this alteration. Again : the " old corrector's" substitution of kills for " dies/' in the following passage from As you like it, act iii. sc. 6, — " Will you sterner be Than he that dies and lives by bloody drops ?" " looks very much as if he, like Mr. Collier of 1844, did not know that " dies and lives" was a phrase of common use in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in the sense of, " subsists from the cradle to the grave f^^ but Mr. Collier of 1858 still tena- ciously clings to his eminently " droll" emendation of dines, vice " dies." Again: in a well known passage in 2 Hen. IV. act iv. sc. 1, the " old corrector" has substituted report of war for "point of war," apparently in profound ignorance that a point of war meant, and, indeed, still means, a strain of martial music played on the trumpet or the drum." Even these examples, and I could give many others (especially from Mr. Dyce's Strictures, passim), form an important array of tests which the " old cor- rector" has not passed, and by some of which he is condemned. And yet, in the face of these, which (with one exception) 1 brought together in the most " Notes and Emendations, 1st and 2nd ed. p. 134. '° Notes and Queries, 1st Series, vol. vii. p. 542. " Staunton's Shakespeare, vol. i. p. 603. 148 THE PERKINS FOLIO: Admirative comments in theEdin- burgh and Saturday K^Tiews. Mr. Brae's test-word. Assailed by the Reviews- prominent form in my Shakspeare Fabrications,^^ the writer in " The Edinburg'h Review " remarks that it " is no common testimony to his [the supposed forger's] strange ingenuity/' that he " has escaped the ordeal of test-words :" i. e. supposing that the one which I have yet to mention should turn out to be as great a failure as that reviewer and the bell- wether whom he follows have conceived it to be. A writer, who blunders with a pitiable fatahty, in " The Saturday Eeview,"'^ expresses the same view, in still stronger terms : — " Considering the reckless profusion with which the emen- dations of all descriptions, from the insertion of new lines down to mere corrections of the punctuation and stage directions, are lavished, this failure to detect intrinsic proof of fraud, in the shape of literary errors and anachronisms, after the most rigorous scrutiny, is evidence of no slight kind in favour of the genuineness of the volume." This is the mere effusion of ignorance. A cur- sory perusal, of chap. I. of my Shakspeare Fabri- cations, would have saved this writer from com- mitting himself to such a statement. One of the earliest attempts to prove the modern origin of the manuscript notes of the Perkins Folio by means of a test-word was made by Mr. A. E. Brae of Leeds. His test-word was communicated to the editor of "Notes and Queries "and myself in 1853, and I made it public in my Shakspeare Fabrications. Since then it has been ignorantly and wantonly » Chap. i. " April 21, 1860. PHILOLOGICAL TESTS. 149 assailed by every review that has taken cognizance of the Collier controversy, with the single exception of " The Literary Gazette." It is, perhaps, to the credit of certain of these journalists that they did not allow their interests to interfere with then* conscientious- ness in shewing no quarter to this test- word. Indeed I do not know whether my coadjutors were not more severe upon the unfortunate monosyllable than my opponents. A little more caution however was td* have been expected. The test has survived their onslaughts, and is still more vigorous than ever. In Coriolanus, act iv. sc. 7, the folio gives us the The text in „ ,, . whioli it lollowmg passage : — occurs. " So ovix Tirtue Lie in the interpretation of the time. And power, unto itself most commendable, Hath not a tomb so evident as a chair T' extol what it hath done." In the corrected foho, 1632,"" the passage stands The Perkins ' gloss. thus^ — '• So our virtues Live in th' interpretation of the time, And power, in itself most commendable. Hath not a tomb so evident as a cheer T extol what it hath done." Mr. E. Grant White was so enamoured of the Mr. E. G, emendation of cheer, for " chair," that he applied gloss. himself to out-perkins Perkins, and proposed to read the line in which that change was made — " Hath not a tomb so eloquent as a cheer." Notes and Emendations, 1st ed. p. 361 ; 2nd ed. p. 366, 150 THE PERKINS FOLIO: Mr. E. Gar- But Mr. Richard Gamett^' proposes to read tongue for " tomb/' wondering- with the reviewer of " The Athenaeum" for August 20th, 1859, how a tomb can extol. Surely it is the chair which is given to extol what the man of power and virtue has done ! I should not wonder if some future Perkins should adopt all three suggestions, and instead of " Hath not a tomb so evident as a chair," read, " Hath not a tongue so eloquent as a cheer!" Meaning of I apprehend no intelUgent person who reads the gloss. passage, as corrected by Perkins, wiU doubt for an instant that a cheer is there intended to be under- stood in the sense of a shout of applause. Among the many reviewers who have assailed my criticism, I have met with only bne who did not tacitly as- sume this point. One, indeed,^^ ventured to say that a cheer might mean countenance or bearing, in the passage in question. But the statement is charac- terized by nothing but headlong blindness, and does not merit serious refutation. It struck Mr. Brae, upon reading the passage, " Hath not a tomb so evident as a cheer To extol ". that the word cheer was necessarily employed in a modem sense, and immediately undertook a close examination of the chronology of the words cheer «i The Athenaeum, Oct. 15th, 1859. 22 The Atlas, Sept. 10th, 1859. PHILOLOGICAL TESTS. 151 and cheers, the result of which with some of the details of the investigation he communicated to me. That result was that a cheer, in the sense of a shout of applause, was not in use till the present century, and that consequently it is a test-word which proves the manuscript notes of the Perkins Folio to be of recent origin. Nothing that has since been written upon the subject has in the slightest degree invalidated the soundness of this criticism. In the first place I must call attention to the dis- Distinction tinctioh between the use of three cheers, and a cheer, three cheers in the sense of an audible expression of applause. " ''''^^' Supposing that it could be shewn that the phrase "three" cheers was employed to express shouts* of applause before a.d. 1750, and which I challenge the world of letters to prove, it might still happen that a cheer was not so employed until A.D. 1800, or thereabouts^ which I challenge the world of letters to disprove. To confound three-cheers with a cheer, would be as ignorant a proceeding as to confound the phrases " maiming the yards,"" and " manning a yard." Before 1750^ I find that three cheers is a conventional phi-ase employed by sailors to express a naval salute. On the contrary, a cheer did not mean anything of the kind ; nor do I believe that any such a term was used by sailors till it became a land expression for a shout of applause ; and that it did not do till t:he present century. *■ A nautical salute. 152 THE PEBKINS FOLIO: The three The archaic meanins's of cheer (subs.) are — archaic ' meanmgsof 1. Countenance, beanng'. cheer, e. g. " Which publique death (receiv'd with such a cheare. As not a sigh, a looke, a shrink bewrayes The least felt touch of a degenerous" feare) Grave life to Envie, to his courage prayse," Samuel Daniel's Civill Warres, st. 57. ("Works, 1602, fol. 8). 2. Comfort, cheerfulness. e. g. " The pretty Lark, climbing the Welkin cleer, Chaunts with a cheer" Here peer — I neer my deer." " Or, if they sing, 'tis with so dull a cheer That leaves look pale, dreading the winter's near." Shakspeare's Sonnets, XCTU. " And when shee saw him there, shee sowned three times, * * * so when she might speake, shee * * * said, ' yee mervaUe, fair ladies, why I make this cheered " The mstorie of Eng Arthur, iii. p. 337 (1858). " Who forth proceeding with sad, sober iheare," Mterie Queen, I. Canto xii. v. 21. 3. Sustenance, entertainment. 6. g. " Tou do not give the cheer ,•" Macbeth, act iii. sc. 4. The archaic There is but one archaic meaning' of three cheers, meaning of . 77. three c&ers. VIZ. a naval salute. '* Crigenerovs ia the original. " With a cheer ; i.e. with a gladsome energy, or as we now say, with a will. PHILOLOGICAL TESTS. 153 In my former work*" I erred not on the side of ex- pansion but on that of restriction. I asserted for a cheer what was true only of three cheers, viz. that the phrase was first used by sailors in the time of Queen Ann J not indeed in the sense of an acclamation of applause, but one of encouragement, or saluta- tion — in other words a salute. This part of my book Tte was quoted by its reviewer in " The Athenaeum " of commits a August 20th, 1859 ; yet in the face of my own too ^l^-ier. conceding qualification a writer in " The Athenaeum" of Feb. 18th, 1860, quotes from a work called "The Diary of Henry Teonge, Chaplain on board His Example Majesty's Ships Assistance, Bristol, and Eoyal Oak, B^ry^^^^ anno 1675 to 1679," an example in 1675 of three cheers, as a naval salute ; and strangely exhibits the extract quoted as a refutation of my criticism. Cleai'ly, if that extract refiited my position, my own Eeply. confession *' did so far more conclusively. Even if '^ In my Shahspeare Fabrications (p. 11), I confessed that a cheer did mean something audible " before it acquired the admirative sense." In this I committed an error. I should Lave said " three cheers meant something audible before even a cheer acquired the admirative sense." I continued, " There is no doubt the first use of a cheer in that sense was a nautical use." This was a part of the same error. I should have said, " There is no doubt the first use of three cheers was a nautical use." I added, " In the time of Queen Ann sailors began to use the term with a restricted meaning, viz. an acclamation of mutual encouragement ; but not of admirative applause." I should have said, " an acclamation of mutual encouragement or salutation, but not of admirative applause." ^ The Shakspeare Fabrications, p. 11. 154 THE PERKINS FOLIO: " the time of Queen Ann," were an expression to be interpreted literally, the period I indicated began some fourteen years anterior to Teonge's first voyage. If, on the other hand, the phrase be taken to mean " the reign of Queen Ann," then, the answer is, that if the phrase 8-cheares could upset the test (a cheer) it would do it as effectually if current in Queen Ann's time, as twenty years sooner. Thus, in either case, to all intents and purposes, my position is as effectually refuted by my own admission, as by the example adduced by " The Athenaeum," if refuted at all. In point of fact then, this now famous citation of the nau- tical use of ^AreecAeers, in the Diary of that quaint, and punch-drinking chaplain, was a mare's-nest, the discovery of which has been proclaimed with flourish of trumpets by the editor of "Notes and Queries," and by the writers in " The Edinburgh Review" and " The Saturday Review." Teonge's Diary, in the first place, does not contain more than one example of the use of cheer, (subs.) and there it is used in the sense of countenance or hearing}'^ Secondly, it contains, not merely eight, (as " The Athenaeum" has it), but twelve examples of the use of three cheers. And to prevent the possibility of mistake I will cite them all. « 21 June, 1675. All the re- " By 6 in the morning aU our ladys are sent on shoare in our maining pinnace ; whose weeping eys bedewed the very sids of the ship, ^ The only phrase in which cheer occurs there is the follow- ing, " Lament, lament with dolefull cheare," Teonge's Diary, p. 64. In " The Saturday Eeview," (Ap. 21, 1860), it is positively stated a cheer in the sense of a cry of applause, " is found several times in a Diary written between 1675 and 1679." ! PHILOLOGICAL TESTS. 155 as they went over into the boate, and seemed to have chosen three cheers (might they have had their wiU) rather to have stuck to the g.^^^'^Se's syds of the ship like the barnacles, or shell-fish, then to have parted from us. But they were no sooner out of sight but they were more merry ; and I could tell with whom too, were I so minded. As soone as the boate was put off from the ship, wee honour their departure with 3 cheares, 7 gunns, and our trumpetts Bounding.'"* This is the example cited by "The Athenseum j"^" with the exception that the writer omitted the preamble, whereby he made it appear — Mr. Collier would say " miintentionally of course" — that the " 3-cheares" were given to extol the deeds of some departing crew : instead of which, that salute was given to animate a boat- load of weeping wives and sweethearts. Nor need the word " honour/' as used here, excite any doubt of the soundness of my cri- ticism : for — 1st. It is playfullt/ used of a grand naval salute — P^^Uf^% given by the captain and his crew to a set of wailing women — to divert the grief of the men, and to amuse and comfort " our mornefuU ladys." 2nd. Honour does not necessarily bear a plausive sense : — is it not an every day conventionality mean- ing nothing ? Does not a lord honour his tenant by shaking hands with him ? Does not a candidate thus honour a voter ? Does not a writer feel honoured by ^ Teonge's Diary, p. 14. ™ Feb. 18, 18G0. 156 THE PERKINS FOLIO : addressing his correspondent? And is there the slightest approach in any of these cases to applause for deeds performed ? The following are the remaining eleven instances : 6th August, 1675. The Sattee cuming up to us about 11 of the clock, the Sjppio and the Thomas and William (boath bound for Scanderoond) com under our stame, and boath salute us ; the first with 3 cheares and 7 gunns, whom wee thank with 5; the other with 5 gunns wee thank with 3 ; and so all part. — p. 51. 8th August, 1675. Here wee find only on of our English shipps crusing about, viz. the Newcastle, a 4"' rate frigott ; whom we salute with 3 cheares, and they answer in a like manner. — p. 51. 6th December, 1675. Al l the Alopeenes and Captaines dined on board us ; were extreamly merry, wishing us thousands of good wishes, and drinking our healths over and over againe. At 4 in the after- noone they all went off : wee gave them 3 cheares, and 11 gunns ; every on of them haveing drauke Snt. George in a rummar as he went over the ship syd ; so wee part. — p. 101. 8th March, 1675-6. At 8 a clock our shiptakes leave of Sir John," and salutes him with. 11 gunns and 3 cheares ; and he nobly saluts us with as many : wee returne him thanks with 5, and so part ; — ^p. 144. 20th April, 1676. The Gaw, and the Greate Bashaw cam to see our ship ; whom wee salute with 5 gunns and 3 cheares. — p. 151. 24th June, 1678. This day Capt. Tho. Langston and his Cornett cam to see our Capt. from Canterbury ; and wee were very merry. They went on shoare about 7 ; and at their going off wee gave them 3 cheares, and 7 gunns.— p. 243. " Sir John Narborough. PHILOLOGICAL TESTS. 157 17-18th July, 1678. I made my scabbard new. The sam day the Lord Strand- ford and his lady, and her sister, and severall others, cam from Sandowne Castle on board us. At their departure we gave them 3 cheares and 9 guuns. — p. 245. 15th November, 1678. The fleete proves to be our Ifewfound Land fleete : the Wool- lidge their convoy ; whoe gave us 3 cheares and 5 gunns. Wee gave the sam ; — p. 264. 16th January, 1678-9. " every Captaine departed from his old ship, and was received into his new ship, with 3 cheares, and drumms beating, and trumpetts sounding." — p. 275. 23rd March, 1678-9. About 3 the Woolwich and her 6 merchants com and joyne with ua ; so that now wee doe not feare all the pickaroons in Turea. Shee cam to our starne, and wee saluted her with 7 guns and 3 cheares, shee did the same ; we gave her 3 more, she did the same ; we thanked the/n with on more, she did so too ; and so we sayle together. — p. 293. 23rd April [!], 1679. This day cam the Governor and many more brave fellows on board us to see our ship. At their departure wee gave them 3 cheares and 15 gunns. — p. 301. Now it will be obvious to every impartial mind Remarks on that in each of these twelve examples the expression, amples, 3 cheares, has nothing- to do with applause. It is a mere naval sa,lute 5 and as such it is significant from being addressed to animated objects. It may coun- tenance, inspirit, encourage or comfort, in a word, cheer the souls to whom it is addressed ; but 3 cheers to extol deeds done is hterally preposterovs, and was never read or heard of till the latter half of the last century. 158 THE PERKINS FOLIO: Origin of the The modern use of cheer, as a substantive, cer- of cheer. tainly originated from the practice among' sailors of saluting with shouting" repeated three distinct times 5 and this being always friendly and encouraging came to be known by the conventional name of three cheers. Eesnm^ of Mv positions then are these : — that up to about the facts. 1800 this threefold cry was not called " cheers" un- less it was repeated thrice ; that in a conventional form it was then known as " three cheers ;" and that up to about 1760 this phrase was not used to signify three shouts on terrA JirmA, or by landsmen. To cheer in England, and Saluer de la voix in France, meant to utter three shouts by way of salutation. " Saluer de la voix . to salute with three cheers, &c." — Falconer's Erench Appendix to his Sea Dictionary, (a new edition, corrected, Ac., 1789.) " To cheer . To salute a ship en passant by the people all coming upon Deck and huzzaing three times : it also im- plies encourage or animate."— British Mariner's Vocabu- lary of Sea Phrases. Moore. 1801. The use of Here we have the term huzzaing. Now I con- tend that before 1760, what we now call a cheer was called, on land, a huzza. I cannot absolutely prove this, but a large induction which I have made has convinced me that such is the fact. Here are a few instructive examples fi-om the reports of our wars with France in 1743. "Our Lines halted half Way to the Enemy to give the PHILOLOGICAL TESTS. 159 Soldiers Time to breathe ; and Laving given a general shout or Suzza, marched on to the Enemy with great Alacrity." — Geiir tleman's Mag. July, 1743, p. 383. " The only Huzza the French gave was at their Eetreat, and that but a feint one. Our Army gave such shouts before we were engaged," &c. — Ibid. p. 386. " Then the Poot gave an Suzsa, and fir'd very fast ; but our Men fir'd too fast for them, and soon made them retreat, and then gave another Huzza and fired." — Ibid. p. 387. There is also an account of an exploit, the re- taking- of the standard at the battle of Dettingen, related in the same volume'^ in these words : — " Our brave dragoon instantly formed a design of retaking it — ^made furiously towards the gens d'arms, and, presenting his pistol, shot him through the Head. The standard happened to fall into his arms — upon which he clapped it between his legs and rode as fast as he could through the ranks of the Enemy, in doing 'which he received five wounds in the face, head, and neck, two balls lodged in his back, three went through his hat, and he rejoined Eis regiment in a very weak condition, as may be imagined, who gave him three hiizz&s on his arrival." If the word " cheers " had then been in use on terrdjirmd in a plausive sense, where would it have • been so likely to be known and employed, as in the English army composed, as it is, of men of all grades and pursuits, and where so likely to have been applied as to an exploit so gallant, and so notorious, performed in the face of the whole army ? But by 1769, I find "three cheers "in use on The use of land; thus in the Report of the Shakspere Jubilee'^J^iandir* 1769. '■' October, 1743, p. 652. '^ 11th Sept. 1769. L 2 160 THE PERKINS FOLIO: in the " Gentleman's Magazine" for 1769, p. 423, we readj — " and Mr. Garrick, (whose behaviour exhibited the greatest politeness with the truest liveliness and hilarity) [drank] another [bumper] to the memory of the Bard, to which was subjoined three cheers, at the instance of your humble ser- vant." Now the question here is, in what sense was this expression, " three cheers," used ? Was it an ac- clamation of applause ? I will not take upon my- self to determine such a refinement of philology : nor is it expedient. I do not wish to be dogmatic 3 but I am convinced that the^expression three cheers will not be found in use on land before 1760. In what sense it was used after that date up to 1800 is of no manner of consequence. The earhest use Campbell's I have fouud of a cheer in the nautical sense is in mis-use of as in. -n t n i -rt i • i'iTi-1 cheer. Campbell s Battle oj the Baltic^ which i think was first published in 1800. In this we read,^* — " Again ! again ! again ! And the havoc did not slack, Tni a feeble elieer the Dane To our cheering sent us back ; — ^" But I cannot find that a cheer was employed in the modern sense of a shout of applause till some time after the beginning of this century. In a case like this the most that can be done is to raise a strong probability for the alleged chrono- logy of the word or phrase which is the subject of " Stanza iv. PHILOLOGICAL TESTS. 161 the criticism. It is then open to any opponents to refute the position if they can, by the simple pro- cess of producing an instance of the word or phrase before the presumed date of its introduction. We have seen how the writer in " The Athenaeum " has attempted to do this by the present test-word and failed. Let us now see how other periodicals have dealt with the question. A weekly paper called " The Bulletin " came out Tte article in 1869. It did not attain an extensive circulation, letin. nor, judging from the few numbers which I have seen, did it deserve one. The number for June 1 1th of that year contained an article on the Perkins Foho. The writer pretended to prove that the manuscript notes were a modern fabrication-, on the single ground that in Coriolumis, act 2, sc. 1, in the passage, — " Tour prattling nurse Into a rapture lets her baby cry While she chats him •" the corrector had superseded "chats" by cheers. The writer in "The Bulletin" argued thus : — " The verb ' to cheer,' in the amended passage, is used in its modern sense of hurrahing or shouting approvingly. Wow in Shakspeare's time, and for 150 years afterwards — we believe we might state a longer period — the word had no such signi- fication, and therefore it is evident that the ' old corrector's' alteration is a modem deception." On July 6th, of the same year, i. e. three days after Mr. Hamilton's first letter had appeared in l^etter signed Jjooker-on" " The Times," a long extract from "The Bulletin "inThe Times, article was re-published in " The Times," being pre- 163 THE PERKINS FOLIO : faced by a letter from a " Looker-on/' beginning- thus, " Let credit be given where credit is due," and claiming for the writer in " The Bulletin" the credit of being the first to prove that the manuscript notes of the Perkins Folio are modern fabrications. Considering that " The Times " had inserted " Looker-on's " letter, and the extract from " The Bulletin " from ignorance or precipitancy, I wrote to the editor of " The Times " a short letter, tempe- rately pointing out that " Looker-on's " claim on be- half of the writer in " The Bulletin" was founded on a mistake j that the word cheer, was indeed an excel- lent test-word, and did occur in manuscript on the margin of Coriolunus in the Perkins FoUoj but that the word was the noun singular, not the verb ; and that the passage on which it was foisted by the " old corrector" was one in the ivth act and 7th scene of that play. Moreover I learn that a gentleman of the highest critical attainments, unknown to me addressed a letter to " The Times " in reply to '^Looker-on's" letter, pointing out, and proving that the verb to cheer was used in Shakspere's day in the sense of "hurrahing or shouting approv- The Times ingly." Neither of these letters were inserted in Sur "The Times." From this suppression of the truth it became evident that the writer of the article in " The Bul- letin," " Looker-on," and the staif of " The Times," had some common interest, which rendered it highly inexpedient that " The BuUethi" article should be refuted. PHILOLOGICAL TESTS. 163 At this time the proof sheets of my little book on The Shakspeare Fabrications were going' through my hands ; but I took no notice of " The Bulletin/' deeming that its mis-statements might be left to oblivion, or, as it might happen, to refutation by those who attributed to the paper a greater impor- tance than I did. " The Bulletin " itself expired shortly afterwards; but its mis-statements were destined to survive in the pages of " Eraser's Magazine." Before ad- verting to this part of the story, it is necessary that I should state exactly the posture of the question at the time of the publication of my little book. The statements of " The Bulletin" are these : — " The verb ' to cheer' in the amended passage, is used in its modern sense of hurrahing or shouting approvingly. Wow in Shakspeare' B time, and for 150 years aftervrards — we believe we might state a longer period — the word had no such signifi- cation." The first statement is " begged." If " to cheer," The state- in the passage "While she cheers him," be taken Bulletin re- in the sense of to enliven, the sense is perfect, and '^ ^ to cheer is used in an archaic sense. The second statement is utterly untrue. To cheer in Shakspere's day was used in the " sense of hurrahing or shout- ing approvingly." Thus, in Phaer's translation of the JEhdd, the words, "Excipiunt plausu pavidos,"^^ is rendered " The Trojans them did chere — " and this book was first published in 1558. So that " Mneii. Ub. v. 1. 575. 164 THE PEEKINS FOLIO: " The Bulletin" article, and " Looker-on's" letter go to what our transatlantic cousins descriptively call " almighty smash." Mr. Singer's The late Mr. Singer, in his Shakespeare Vindi- ""'*^^' cated, 1863, p. 214, ventures to say of the emenda- tion cheers, vice " chats," that " it savours too mucli of recent times. * * * Cheers is never used by Shatspeare in the sense of applauding." Doubtless Mr. Singer was right in stating that the verb to cheer is not used by Shakspere in the sense of to applaud ; but he committed an error in saying that " it savours too much of recent times." It was as famihar Enghsh in Shakspere's day as in ours. These are the facts, then, as to the use of the verb to cheer, in the sense of to applaud, and of the sub- stantive singular a cheer, in the sense of an acclama- tion of applause. The former was familiar in Shak- spere's day, the latter probably came into use in the present centiu*y. Mr. T. J. In " Fraser's Magazine" for January last, in an mistake^ and article on '^The Shakspearian Discovery," appeared ^ismation*^"^ note on my Shahspeare Fabrications, ^ndi in particular on my i-emarks in vocem, cheer. The writer says, " Dr. Ingleby * * has been anticipated in his objection as to the modern use of the word cheer, by Mr. Singer * * and also by a writer in the Bulletin." Now I have shewn that both these writers make an assertion which is not borne out by facts : the PHILOLOGICAL TESTS. 165 statements of the writer in " The Bulletin" being wholly reversed and disproved. Nor did I anywhere put forth such a statement as that in " The Bulletin" or even that of Mr. Singer. My statements related to another word— not a verb at all — but a noun substan- tive — with the advantage that my position had not (and has not) been disproved. I accordingly wrote to the editor of " Eraser's Magazine" complaining of the injustice that had been done me^ enclosing^ for insertion, a letter of simple facts. That letter was not inserted. In the February number of " Eraser's Magazine" the writer of the former article, in a note to a second article on the same subject, makes the amende as follows : — " To cheer is, as was mentioned in the note in question, \i.e. the note appended to the first article] as old at least as Dryden j Dr. Ingleby shews ia his letter that it was used in the time of Shakespeare. A cheer is, on the other hand, clearly a word of comparatively recent introduction." This reads very well : but the verb to cheery in the sense of to extol or applaud by shouts, was not " mentioned in the note in question, to be as old at least as Dryden." The remark was on the verb to cheer, in the other sense of to encourage by shouts. What I did shew was that to cheer, in the sense of^ to applaud by shouting, was used ia the time of Shak- spere, which has little in common with the statement of the writer of that note. It is not diflScult to understand how the writer in 166 THE PERKINS FOLIO: *^ The Bulletin" obtained the hint as to cheer being a test-word for the manuscript notes of the Perkins Folio. He no doubt had heard of Mr. Brae's test- word^ and stumbled on the passage in ihejirst act of Coriolanus, instead of that in the fourth act ; made the verb (to cheer) the test-word, instead of the noun substantive (a cheer), and by consequence, instead of reaping fame, " came to grief." So may such ill-got- ten gains ever prosper ! But why did the writer in " Eraser's Magazine" take such pains to make it appear that I had told him nothing new? In the note to the January article he had coupled together two statements. 1st. That I had been anticipated by "The Bulletin." 2nd. That to cheer, in the sense of to encourage hy shouts, was as old as Dryden. These two state- ments are consistent, even if for Dryden he had written Shakspere. Now in the note to the Feb- ruary article he identified my statement (which I substantiated by proof) that to cheer, in the other sense of to applaud by shouts, was as old as Shak- spere, with his own in the former note, without telling his readers in what my statement differed irom his : leaving them in fact to infer that I had simply found an earlier date for the verb to cheer in the sense of *o encouraye hy shouts, and thus leaving the state- ment, that I had been anticipated, mdnvalidated. Whereas, what I stated and proved completely in- validated that statement. He thus at once avoided the indignity of retracting his own erroneous state- PHILOLOGICAL TESTS. 167 ment^ and covered the retreat of the mysterious " Bul- letin" peddler. But it must be owned that one important conces- sion is extorted from this writer : — *' Dr. Ingleby is undoubtedly right. **A cheer [iathe sense of an audible expression of admirative applause, for in no other sense did I ever contend that it was modem] is * * clearly a ■word of comparatively modern introduction. * * * Certainly there was no intention to detract from the undoubted merit and originality of Dr. Ingleby's argument on the use of the noun." This is^ at least, an admission of the correctness of my views on this point. To the remarks on the " cheer" criticism in " The Athenaeum" of February 18th^ 1869^ I have already fiilly rephed. Mr. Collier, in his Reply, in a note, takes notice ^y- Collier's of this test-word. He remarks : — ™ " that cheer was in use as a word of encouragement and ap- probation early in the reign of Elizabeth, and that the expres- sion three cheers is found in Teonge's Diary from 1675 to 1679. Tet we are told by the enemies of the Perkins foUo that the earliest use of three cheers was about 1806 ! Those who make such unfounded objections come very iU provided to maintain them." I should think so. But where did Mr. OoUier en- counter such a statement ? I never put forth any- thing so absurd : nor, as far as I am aware, has the result of my criticism been so mis-stated until subsequently to the pubHcation of Mr. CoUier's Beply.^' * Page 65. ^ Thus in " The Athenaeum," for April 21st, 1860, a writer 168 THE PERKINS FOLIO: The mistake The editor of " Notes and Queries" at last achieves of Notes and the feat of a leading- article on the Shakspere Con- Quenes. troversy,^ where in allusion either to Mr. Brae^ or myself, he says : — " we then knew, as all the world knows now, that the test word " cheer," over which there had been such a prodigious caekUng, was no test-word at all ; and that, although a certain learned gentleman fancied that he had proved that " cheer, as an audible expression of admirative applause, could not hare been used before 1807," it did exist, and had existed sufficiently- long to prove the curious ignorance of those who supposed it only to date from the present century." These assertions are easily made. Why does not Mr. W.J. Thorns pubhsh in his " Notes and Queries" one example of a cheer in the specified sense of an earlier date than 1800 ? I challeng-e him to do so^ or to confess that he " said the thing that was not." Mr.H.Meri- I must now briefly notice Mr. H. Merivale's take.^ ™^ remarks in the " Edinburgh Review/'^' on the test- word " cheer." He writes thus : — " It was reserved for Dr. Ingleby to attempt the boldest dis- covery in this line, and to meet with the most signal discomfi- ture. Sis test-word is 'cheer,' in the modem sense of an applauding and encouraging cry. (Coriolanus, act iv. scene 7, where the corrector substitutes ' cheer' in this sense for 'chair.') This, says Dr. Ingleby, is positively modern :" says that I have " pledged [my] literary credit that the word cheer was unknown in our language before 1808." The "Edinburgh" reviewer (Ap. 1860), if more truthful, is hardly more correct. '^ Second Series, vol. ix. p! 211. ® April, 1860. PHILOLOGICAL TESTS. 169 My answer is short and decisive : that I never attempted to appropriate the discovery of the test- word cheer ; the entiris merit of that belongs to Mr. JBrae : that the test- word is not ' cheer' in the modern sense of an applauding- and encouraging cry, hut in the sense of an applauding cry only : that I never said that the word in the sense of " an applauding and encouraging cry" was modern. This is an admirahle specimen of the reckless inaccuracy of reviewers. But that Mr. Herman Merivale's name is a guarantee for his truthfiilness, I should conceive that he had studied how he could best misrepresent the real state of the case, and my views on the test- word. He closes his scanty and inaccurate remarks on this subject by citing Mr. Teonge again, evi- dently in the most childlike ignorance of what Mr. Teonge's testimony really is; and adds : — " We do not see how this is to be met, unless by adding a new count to the prosecution, and charging that ' Teonge's Diary,' a singular book enough," is also a forgery of Mr. Col- Uer's." Without wishing to throw out any doubt as to the genuineness of Teonge's Diary, I am bound to remind my readers that it is not an old printed book ; it was published by Mr. Charles Knight in 1825. The manuscript I have never seen. It is most pro- bably genuine. But it certainly cannot carry the same authority as a contemporary printed book. I " Did Mi". Merivale ever see it ? I should certainly think not. 170 THE PERKINS FOLIO. am not aware that any question has ever been raised as to its genuineness ; but it is perfectly harmless, and very entertaining, and for all I know it may owe its immunity to those very features. But, be it genuine or spurious, the use of " 3 cheares" therein is quite beside the present question. CHAPTER VIII. The Perkins Folio. — ^Me. Collier's DEALiNas with the Emendatioits. Neither my Shakspeare Fabrications^ nor yet No direct Mr. Hamilton's Inquiry, directly charg'es Mr. Col- forgery lier with fabncating the manuscript corrections of ^g°]^^\j;j. the Perkins Folio, or those of the Bridgewater Co^^'^- Folio. Mr. Hamilton indeed commits himself to the opinion that all the connections of both fohos are by one hand ; and in that opinion I sincerely concur. In ray former work on the subject I pass a judg- ment upon the identity of the pencil-writing in the body of the Perkins FoUo, with that on the board at the end. I there say : — " Mr. Collier admits that on the board at the end of the folio he wrote various words, and made several notes, which he never attempted to erase ; and he challenges a comparison of the pencil-writing in the body of the folio with those notes. I have compared them ; and must say candidly, that a comparison of the two, i/ii can support a conclusion (for inference from hand- writing alone is always a doubtful matter), can lead to no other conclusion than that one hand wrote both.'" Mr. T. J. Arnold in his second article in " Fraser's Magazine/'^ appears not to understand what pencil- lings in the body of the folio I refer to. Now the fact is, that when I wrote the passage which I have just cited, it had not occurred to me that there were two handwritings in pencil in the book.* " Scrutator," in- ■ p. 77. > Feb. 1860. 3 There are two handwritings in ink, viz. the " old corrector's" 172 THE PERKINS FOLIO : deed, finds three such handwritings there ; hut it is difficult to say what he would not find, if his case required it. I will now be more explicit. I find Three classes iAree classes of expressions in pencil: — 1st, Oor- Tn^hTper-^^ rections of the text, wholly or partially corresponding' kins Folio. ^^]j j^^jj. corrections ; 2nd, Apparent corrections of the text, not adopted in ink; 3rd, References to other parts of the folio, and to other books — and other remarks, ticks, Unes, &c. The irresis- If Mr. ColUer had been dead and buried 50 years, tible infer- . .„ . -.^-./^ t i ence, ». e. II we were now m a.d. 1910, i do not think it would have ever entered into the thoughts of reader, critic, commentator or editor, who might use this copy of the second folio, that more than one hand wrote these various pencillings. I further say that all the pencilUngs of the first class are so ob- viously in one hand, that any person who doubts it, including " Scrutator" if indeed he does doubt it bondjide, must be out of his senses. And I further say, that the pencilling"s in all three classes appear to me to be in one handwriting, and to differ only in the fact that those in class 3, are (like the pencil-writing on the board at the end) plainer, apparently more recent, than those in classes 1 and 2. Mr. Collier's jf M^.^ ColUer be innocent of the charge of writing the pencillings in classes 1 and 2, it must be allowed that he is the most unlucky among mortals, and that modern antique, and a genuine handwriting of the last century, in which the dramatis persona of Hen. V. are written. See sheet of facsimiles, no. VI. DEALINGS WITH THE EMENDATIONS. 173 lie has acted in respect of these pencillings hke a man — Beds ayei vpoe arav' He begins his reply to a charge which nobody had Mr. Collier's directly brought against him, by making allegations presumed which his opponents would be very willing to admit. £^11^? Here are two of them : 1st, as to the ink cor- rections — "These manuscript notes I never altered, added to, nor diminished."* Granted ; but did he make them as they stand 1 2nd, as to the pencillings — " I declare most positively, in the face of the vrhole world, that, while the Perkins folio was in my hands, I never saw a pencil-mark in it that I had not made myself, . . . ." ^ Nor anybody else — if Mr. Collier had really made them all ! But he does, indeed, very lamely deny both the imputations. He says, speaking of other books : — " I have even sometimes resorted in the first instance to pencil, and when next I Lad a pen and ink at hand, I have written in ink over my own pencillings. * * * That I did so in the case of the Perkins folio I utterly and absolutely deny ;"^ " If I wanted to be sure not to forget to look at a particular passage in Malone, or in any other commentator, or if I wished to note something that required again to be examined in the folio, I took the ordinary method with a pencil that I always kept at hand ; but that I thus added the slightest hint with reference Beply, p. 19. « Eeply, p. 24. « Eeply, p. 20. M 174 THE PERKINS FOLIO : Verdict on the pencil- writing. to any projected alteration of the language of the poet I deny- in the strongest form in which it is possible to clothe a denial."'^ Unfortunately for Mr. Collier, the evidence against him, derived from the writings in the Perkins Folio, is of a very damnatory character ; and the similarity between the pencil-writing which Mr. OoUier re- pudiates, and the pencil-writing which he owns, is of a most startling closeness. Indeed, similarity is a feeble word to express the resemblance in question. On this point some of Mr. Frederick Gt. Nether- chft's facsimiles, prefixed to Mr. Hamilton's book, are incompetent to guide opinion. The peculiar character of the handwriting in pencil is not always preserved in the lithograph.* If the reader will here turn to sheet no. Y. he 7 Eeply, p. 24. 8 How far it is possible by lithography to simulate the characteristics of handwritings I am not prepared to say. Wbether the failure to which I aUude in Mr. Frederick Gr. Netherclift's facsimiles is a fault inseparable from lithography, or whether it is due to a want of fidelity in the tracings, I will not undertake to decide. But this I must say, that having ex- amined all those facsimiles which are on Mr. Hamilton's fron- tispiece with the originals in the Perkins Polio, by the aid of compasses, I have found that several of them differ from their prototypes, both in the proportions of their parts, and in the inclination of the lines. In particular I wiU instance the pencil words Wall and aside, and the ink word Godi None of these can be called facsimiles without great licentiousness of expres- sion. The word aside, and the phrase us now, both of which appear in Mr. P. G-. Netherclift's sheet, have been facsimiled by Mr. Ash1)ee (see sheet no. V.) The reader who has access to the originals may judge how far that artist has been sue- 1=^ « I ^ ^ c^ I ^ ^ v: r J H ri* 1 . O 9 a ^ y5 • ^ •p. II -^5; X ^ ^ 4 ^ ,^ «"-• "^^ X W Tl .^ ^^ I ^ sc,- 1 * ^ I® ^ S