TH:E TRIAL OF THE "OLD CORRECTOR."'

WE resume our remarks on Mr. Collier's alleged discoveries in Shakespearean literature, and on the inventions of his "Old Cor- rector."

Having clearly determined the true character of the "Perkins Folio," Mr. Hamilton proceeds to notice "a series of systematic forgeries which have been perpetrated apparently within the last half century," and all of which have been first "uttered" by Mr. The list begins with the marginal emendations in Lord Ellesmere's choice copy of the first folio edition (1623) of Shake- speare. They were never heard of until after the volume had been in Mr. Collier's possession, having been lent to him in 1842 • An Inquiry into the Genuineness of the Manussript Corrections in .11r. J. Payne Collier's Annotated Shalispere, folio 1632; and of certain Shaksperian documents likewise published by Mr. Collier. By N. E. S. A. Hamilton. Pub- lished by Bentley. by the late Lord Ellesmere. They are frequently identical with those afterwards discovered by Mr. Collier in the folio of 163t, the manipulation is also the same in both cases, the pencil having preceded the pen and left traces still discernible in the Ellesmere folio, and Mr. Hamilton declares that both sets of cor- rections are " decidedly by the same hand." The present Lord Ellesmere, however, denies this assertion, and Mr. Collier publishes, by permission, his Lordship's written statement, that " there is no pretence whatever for saying that the emendations in the PeP.- kins 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." If his Lordship's opinion be well founded, Mr. Collier is entitled to a verdict of Not Proven on this part of the case, but that is all ; no advance will have been made towards proving that the MS. corrections in the Elles- mere folio are genuine ; they will still remain deeply tainted with suspicion. We may add that the mere ownership of the volume in question does not impart any peculiar value to Lord Elles- mere's testimony, or at all entitle it to outweigh that of Mr. Hamilton, who may be presumed to be at least his Lordship's equal in palwographic skill. The Library of Bridgewater House has been rich in discoveries for Mr. Collier, including, besides the corrections in the folio of 1623, five documents of the highest interest, supposing them genuine, in regard to the life of Shakspeare. These he found in 1835, among Lord Ellesmere's manuscripts—so he states, adding in his "Reply" of the 18th ultimo, "I was, it is true, alone when they came to my hands ; but his lordship had been in the room only a few minutes before." If he had only staid a little longer ! But such has always been Mr. Collier's ill-luck, so that he has never been able to produce a living eye-witness to the manner in which he made any one of his numerous discoveries. Either his witnesses die like Mr. Rodd, or they walk out of the room like the late Lord Ellesmere, just at the moment when he has most need of their presence. Opinions in favour of the genuineness of some of these five Bridgewater documents were freely expressed by the Reverend A. Dyce and by Mr. Halliwell in 1848 on the strength of facsimiles presented to them by Mr. Collier; but they have subsequently retracted those opinions, and yet Mr. Collier has had the boldness to appeal to them in his " Reply " as if they still subsisted in his favour. 'What is this but another instance of that "deliberate misrepresentation" im- puted to Mr. Collier by Mr. Dyce in the preface to his "Stric- tures, &c." published last year ? "Mr. Collier has over and over again," says his referee, "when speaking of me in his Notes, ball recourse to such artful misrepresentation as, I believe, was never before practised, except by the most unprincipled hirelings of tbn press." The spurious nature of the Bridgewater MSS. was demo*: strated by Mr. Halliwell in a pamphlet printed for private circa; lation in 1853, and two skilled palfeographists, the Reverend Jo- seph Hunter and Mr. Black (both of the Record Office), having examined the originals, have allowed themselves to be mentioned se agreeing in opinion with Mr. Halliwell, Mr. Hamilton says:— "On the 17th of November 1859, I had an opportunity of carefully ex- amining these Bridgewater MSS. for myself, in company with Sir Frederit: Madden and Dr. Kingsley. How it was Mr. Collier deceived himself as to their real character, I will not attempt to speculate. With one exception, which manifests some dexterity of execution, these documents display their spurious character at a glance ; whilst two of the number (the Daborne warrant and Daniel's letter), are such manifest forgeries, that it seems in- credible how they could have cheated Mr. Collier's observation, even under the circumstances of excitement described by him as consequent upon their discovery Much as these five documents vary in manner and style of execution, no one, I think, who examines them carefully, (tracing through the whole of them similarities in the forms of cer- tain letters, and even identity of mistakes), can doubt but that they are all the work of one pen. /for can I too pointedly reiterate my be! lief that the whole of the forgeries treated of in this volume have been executed by one hand. The same exaggerations, the same blunders, and even the same excellencies in performance being observable in Mr. Col- lier's corrected folio, 1632, in Lord Ellesmere's folio, 1623, in the Bridge- water Manuscripts under discussion, and in the Dulwich forgeries, and the document in the State Paper Office described further on. In regard to the former, indeed, this fact is pretty well indicated, not only by the hand- writing itself, but by the similar use of pencil marks to direct the ink eor- rections, and by a precisely similar mode of erasure."

Mr. Hamilton takes us next to Dulwich where lies the original letter from Mrs. Alleyn to her husband, an adulterated copy of which was inserted by Mr. Collier in his Memoirs of Edward Altera, published in 1841. Mr: Hamilton has detected thirty- two minor blunders, literal and verbal, in this professedly verba- tim and literatim copy ; but these are trifles in comparison with the alleged interpolation of a whole passage, consisting of four lines and a half, not one syllable of which, it is averred, exists in the original, or ever did exist in the place in which Mr. Collier pretends that he found them. This passage is one in which men- tion is made of "Mr. Shakespeare of the Globe," and is pro- fessedly copied from the lower and damaged portion of a leaf in which decay has made some gaps ; but the beginnings of the last six lines, as well as other portions of some of them, are still legible, and, unless Mr. Hamilton has grossly misrepresented them, they prove beyond all cavil that the passage referring to Mr. Shakespeare is a pure invention of the copyist. Mr. Hamilton has given a facsimile of this part of the letter, and adds :— "I contrast on opposite pages two versions of this document ; the first is a copy made by myself, and containing a true reading of the original, the second is that published by Mr. Collier in the Memoirs of Alleyn,. p62. have broken the lines, both in my version of the document and in that of Mr. Collier, in exact accordance with the written document, so. that the reader may see at a glance the average number of words oontained and be thereby enabled to judge for himself of the actual impossibility of the paragraphin question having ever been contained in the original docu- ment where Mr. Collier avers that he found it. At the same time it will be observed that portions of three damaged lines are still legible, which are in- compatible with the Shakepere paragraph, and in regard to which Mr. Col- lier is wholly silent."

We subjoin the concluding lines of both these versions, putting Mr. Hamilton's first, and Mr. Collier's after it.

" Aboute a weeke agoe there [cani]e a youths who said he was Mr. ',moods Chalo[ner]s man . . . . Id have borrowe]d as to

bought have , thinp for [h]is Mr t hvm Cominge without . . . token I would have & I bene su . . ...... . . . and inquire after the fellow and said he had lent hvm a horse I

Us feare me he gulled hym, tlioughe he gulled not„. The youthe

what was a prety youthe and handsom in appayrell, we know not , became of him Mr. Bromffeild commends hym he was heare yesterdaye. Niche and Jearnes be well, and commend them, so dothe Mr. Cooke and his weife in the kyndest sorer, and so once more in the hartiest manner farwelle "Tour faithfull and lovinge weife

" JOANE ALLEVNE."

" Aboute a weelse a goe there came a youthe who said he was Mr. Frauncis Chaloner who would have borrowed VI to have bought things for • • • and said he was known • unto you, and Mr. Shakespeare of the globe, who came • • • said he knewe hym not, only he herde of hyna that he was a roge • • • so he was glade we did not lend him the monney • • • Richard Johnes [went] to seeke and inquire after the fellow, and said he had lent hyrn a horse. I feare sue he gulled hytn, thoughe he gulled not us. The youthe was a prety youthe, and hansom in appayrell : we moire not what became

of hym. Mr. Benfield commodes hym ; he was heare yesterdaye. Nicke and Jeames be well, and contend them : so doth Mr. Cooke and his wiefe in the kyndest sorte, and so once more in the hartiest manner

forted!.

"Your faithfull and Iminge wieje,

" JOAN'S ALLEYX1."

Mr. Collier has brought no countercharge of falsification against Mr. Hamilton with respect to this letter. If then we assume that there exists no ground for any such charge, it is manifest- that Mr. Collier has put four lines in the space filled by three in the original, and that he has suppressed the terminations of the third and fourth lines, as well as the nine words and a half that are distinctly legible at the beginnings of the fourth, fifth, and sixth. His defence is quibbling and, utterly futile. " Inasmuoh," he says, "as the old decayed paper is here indisputably defective, Mr. Hamilton could not possibly know whether Shakespeare's name had or had not been visible, when I saw the' letter thirty years ago." That is not the question. Even should we grant for argument's sake what can neither be proved nor disproved, that Shakespeare's name was inscribed on one of the now lost fragments of the page, it would still be certain that it never made part of the passage with which it has been incorporated by Mr. Collier. "I assert,' he says "most distinctly, that the name was contained. in this part of says, Alleyn's Letter." Well, it is a safe assertion, and he is welcome to all the good it can fairly do him ; nor will we dispute his assurance that he had once a dear friend "who could bear witness to the fact," only it happens unfortunately that the man is dead like the rest of Mr. Collier's witnesses, and we cannot cross-examine him as to the context in which the name appeared when he read it in the letter.

That phrase, "Mr. Shakespeare of the Globe," strikes us as being strangely placed in a private letter from a player's wife to her husband, Shakespeare's contemporary. Was Shakespeare so little known to his brethren, or were there so many living actors of his name, that it was necessary thus to distinguish him ? If Mrs. Charles Kean had occasion to make casual mention of Mr. Buckstone or Mr. Robson in a letter to her husband, we do not suppose she would call them "Mr. Backstone of the Haymarket" or Mr. Robson of the Olympic."

Mr. Collier has declared himself the first to discover, as he has been the first to print, three other documents extant in Dulwich College, all of which Mr. Hamilton asserts to be forgeries. One is a letter of John Marston in which his hand-writing is well imitated, "but," says Mr. Hamilton, "I soon noticed the exist- ence of numerous modern pencil-marks underlying the ink, and on looking closely into the document, detected that the whole of the letter had been first traced out in pencil, after the same fashion as the pencilling in the annotated folio of Shakspeare's Plays, 1632." This is unanswerable, and Mr. Collier does not attempt to answer it. The only apology he offers for the second of the three documents, a Player's Challenge, pronounced by Mr. Hamilton to be "a forgery from beginning to end, although executed with singular dexterity," is that it was "collated by Mr. Ilalliwell, and printed by him in 1848 as a genuine relic ;" ITa i

but what does Mr. 'well think of it now ? Of the last of the three, Mr. Hamilton says-

" In the second, the document itself is genuine, and is noticed in his 'Inquiry' by Malone, but the List of Players' added to it, in which Shakspeare's name occurs, is a modern addition. Mr. Collier was the first to notice and publish this List of Players'' but although he draws atten- tion to the circumstance that Malone, while mentioning the letter, is altogether silent as to the remarkable List' appended to it, he does not appear to regard this as a ground for suspecting the authenticity of the List, but seems to think that a satisfactory explanation may be found by supposing that Malone had reserved' it for his Life of Shakspeare : the true explanation, doubtless, being, that when Malone examined the docu- ment, file List • in question was not there, but has been added since his time. Any one who will compare the character of the hand in which the 'List' is written, with the letter signed H. S. in the Bridgewater library, will probably arrive at the conclusion I have done, that they are by the same hand."

.

Mr. Collier's reply to this explicit statement is either marvel-

lonely silly or marvellously enuons; perhaps it is both. Here it is :—

" Another is a sort of assessment to the poor of Southwark, dated the 6th of April 1609, in which. Shakespeare appears as a contributor ; and surely it is enough for me to say of this document, that iv was seen by Malone when I was only seven years old, as he has himself recorded in his Enquiry,' oc- tavo, 1796, p. 210. At all events, I suppose that even Mr. Hamilton will not go quite the length of contending that I was a forger at that early age, when I was only a probationer in 'pot-hooks and hangers.'" "It was seen by Malone." What is TT ? The document it- self about the genuineness of which there is no dispute ? Or the List, the existence of which in Malone's time is the very matter in dispute ? The Player's Petition, a document preserved in the State Paper Office, and unanimously condemned as a forgery on the 30th of last January by a committee of five experts appointed by the Master of the Rolls, was first published by Mr. Collier, but we do not find that he ever laid claim to its discovery. Furthermore, Mr. Lemon of the State Paper Office has testified that the Players' Petition was well known to his father and himself before Mr. Col- lier began his researches in that department. This, at least, is quite to the point, which is more than can be said for anything else that has been advanced on Mr. Collier's side during the whole course of the present controversy. It is unfortunate for him that Dr. Wellesley could not write as definitely on the subject of the Per- kins' Folio. We find, indeed, this editorial statement in the Press of Saturday last : "With regard to the Players' Petition we understand. that further inquiries will be made—the authorities at the State Paper Office not feeling at all satisfied with Mr. Lemon's letter upon the sabject ; " but not being ourselves in the secrets of the Office, we have no reason to question Mr. Lemon's accuracy. Two or three more points remain to be mentioned, on which Mr. Collier has been pressed for explanations, but has offered none. He has described some designs of Inigo Jones for court masques, and printed a manuscript direction annexed to one of the drawings, for dressing the part of Falstaff, alleging that he discovered both in some ancient depositories of the late Duke of Devonshire. How comes it then that neither this drawing nor the description of Falstaff is to be found in the Shakespeare So- ciety's volume, edited by Mr. Planche, from the Duke of Devon- shire's library ? Mr. Collier has also published sundry extracts from a manuscript volume in his possession, which he believes to be of the time of the Protectorate. We are not aware that any living eyes but his own have ever seen this curious volume. Will he submit it to the scrutiny of competent and impartial judges, and along with it a document minutely described by him in the Athena:1m, December 6th, 1856, as illustrating Shakspeare's Richard the Second?

Our readers are aware that so long as the case between Mr. Collier and. his literary adversaries had. received but a partial hearing, we abstained from expressing any opinion of our own upon its merits. But Mr. Collier has at last broken his self- imposed rule of silence ; he has appealed to the public, and in- voked their decision ; we are therefore free to declare our conviction that the reply he has published to Mr. Hamilton's book is, with the exceptions above specified, entirely nugatory. Hee he anything better in reserve ?