212 



NOTES AND QUEEIES. 



[2-<i s. ix. Mar. 24. '60. 



had been, anrl who might have been supposed to 

 know its history, if any people did, he was guilty 

 of an error in judgment, which resulted in an in- 

 sult to those gentlemen and a grievous injustice to 

 Mr. Collier. 



In the estimation of some people the pending 

 controversy regards rather the Shakspearian docu- 

 ments than the Perkins Folio. Mr. Hamilton 

 considers " that the importance of these docu- 

 ments is even greater than that of the correc- 

 tions." We do not agree with Mr. Hamilton. 

 We regard the poet's writings as more important 

 than his Life. In spite of all that has been written 

 upon the subject, our faith in the genuineness of 

 the Old Corrector's work is still unshaken. An 

 examination of the Perkins Folio after the publica- 

 tion of Mr. Hamilton's letters to The Times con- 

 firmed that faith ; and we hold it of the highest 

 importance to English literature that the real cha- 

 racter of the Old Corrector should be established; 

 for we believe that neither Mr. Collier nor his op- 

 ponents have done entire justice to the Perkins 

 Folio : we are for a Commission to inquire into 

 that, extraordinary volume. 



We went to the examination of the Perkins 

 Folio with our minds prepared to take an entirely 

 calm and unbiassed view of the matter. We had 

 fairly considered and weighed Mr. Hamilton's 

 letters to The Times: we then knew, as all the 

 world know now, that the test word " cheer," 

 over which there had been such a prodigious 

 cackling, was no test word at all ; and that, al- 

 though a learned gentleman fancied that he had 

 proved that " cheer, as an audible expression of 

 admirative applause, could not have been used 

 before 1807," it did exist, and had existed suf- 

 ficiently long to prove the curious ignorance of 

 those who supposed it only to date from the pre- 

 sent century. 



We went to the examination, also, with a full 

 sense of how little the mere evidence of hand- 

 writing is to be depended upon. Take a well- 

 known instance : there have been some five-and- 

 twenty claimants put forward for the authorship 

 of The Letters of Junius. . Has not in every in- 

 stance one of the strongest arguments in favour of 

 each of the five-and-twenty been the unmistakable 

 identity of his handwriting and that of Junius? 

 and we remember, moreover, as our readers may. 

 the painfully contradictory evidence as to hand- 

 writing given within the last few years on a late 

 celebrated trial for slander. While with respect 

 to Mr. Maskelyne's " physical scrutiny of the do- 

 cument" (and we desire to speak with every re- 

 spect of that gentleman) we could no* but feel 

 that there was little or nothing in it; for, as he 

 candidly admitted, "evidence of this kind eaniot 

 by itself establish a forgery." He proved what 

 we believe to be perfectly consistent with the 

 genuineness of the MS. notes, the existence of 



pencilling below the ink writing : while the value 

 of any opinion formed by him on scientific grounds 

 was materially affected by the absence of proof 

 of his ever having made similar experiments to 

 those by which he tested the Old Corrector upon 

 documents of unquestioned authenticity, — to say 

 nothing of a certain feeling that Mr. Maskelyne's 

 evidence on the subject of the ink (and of the ink 

 of that period comparatively little is known) went 

 to show that what the Old Corrector had used was 

 really ink after all — although ink which had un- 

 dergone all the chemical changes which must result 

 from exposure for a couple of centuries to light, 

 heat, damp, and the ill-usage of various kinds to 

 which this book has been subjected. 



The two great objections urged by Mr. Hamil- 

 ton to the authenticity of the Old Corrector were 

 the " pencil marks written in a bold modern hand 

 of the present century," and the " pencil spelling 

 being modern, while the ink is old." Mr. Collier 

 seems (o doubt the existence of these numerous 

 pencil marks. We cannot doubt that they do 

 exist : but they are of two kinds. There are 

 some few perhaps modern comments, of which 

 we shall say a word presently ; and there are said 

 to be " an infinite number of faint pencil marks 

 and corrections," in obedience to which, according 

 to Mr. Hamilton, " the Old Corrector has made 

 his emendations." With all respect to Mr. Hamil- 

 ton, that is just begging the question ; and before 

 Mr. Hamilton can establish that point, he has to 

 show how it was that when the Old Corrector had 

 to make minute corrections he first made them in 

 pencil, while when he had to write whole lines 



HE DID NOT REQUIRE THAT ASSISTANCE ? For 



some of the longer corrections are, we think, en- 

 tirely beyond suspicion. 



But it is a charge against Mr. Collier that he 

 did not discover these pencil marks. There is 

 nothing extraordinary in that circumstance. Not 

 only did Mr. Collier not discover them, but Mr. 

 Netherclift, when making the numerous facsimiles, 

 did not discover them ; they were not seen by any 

 of the sharp eyes to whose inspection Mr. Collier 

 submitted the volume. Nay more, Sir Frederic 

 Madden had the book in his possession for, we 

 believe, about a week, subjecting it during all 

 that time to the closest scrutiny — and Sir F. 

 Madden did not discover them. They were 

 first found out by Mr. Hamilton when intently 

 poring over the volume in order, we believe, to 

 make a complete transcript of all the corrections 

 in Hinnlet. 



" But," says Mr. Hamilton, " these pencil notes 

 are in a modern hand of the present century." 

 Some are thought to be so certainly, although 

 opinion is divided upon that point. Mr. Hamilton 

 gives an instance. By the side of the lines — 



" And crooke the pregnant Hinges of the Knee,"— 

 there is the word " begging," asserted to be clearly 



