2 nd S. IX. Mar. 24. *G0.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



213 



in a modern hand ; but whether it is in a modern 

 hand or not, it is clearly— not what Mr. Hamil- 

 ton asserts, a pencil guide to the Old Corrector 

 — but a mere gloss, comment, or illustration. 

 But Mr. Hamilton gives another instance. _ " At 

 times," he says, " the correction first put in the 

 margin is obliterated, and a second emendation 

 substituted in its stead, of which we will mention 

 two examples which occur in Cymbeline (Fol. 

 1G32, p. 400. col. 1.): 



" With Oakes unshakeable and roaring Waves,"— 



where Oakes has been first made into Cliffes, and 

 subsequently into Roches." Now this is very un- 

 fairly stated. The word Cliffes, which is in 

 pencil, is not in a modern hand. It is clearly in a 

 hand as old or older than the word Rockes, which 

 is in ink. There can be no mistake about this : 

 for though many of the instances pointed out in 

 Mr. Hamilton's letter were so obscure that we 

 could not see them, here the words were separate 

 and distinct ; and the handwriting of Cliffes 

 could not be mistaken by anyone for a modern 

 hand of the present century. Mr. Hamilton should 

 have avoided this error. "We think a great deal 

 too much has been said about these pencil marks. 

 They can be readily explained without having re- 

 course to the supposition of fraud. Pencil notes 

 written, as we believe those of the Old Corrector 

 to have been, in the middle of the seventeenth 

 century, are common enough: we have seen lately 

 a copy of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity with 

 such notes ; and surely few men who make notes 

 in books have not done as the Old Corrector 

 seems to have done — first pencilled, and then 

 preserved them by putting them in ink ; or by 

 getting somebody else to do so for him ; and these 

 written notes may have been inserted by some 

 subsequent possessor of the volume, who set pro- 

 per store by the pencil emendations, and himself 

 added to the number of corrections. 



But the second argument against the authen- 

 ticity of the Old Corrector is insisted upon almost 

 more strongly than the first, namely, " that where 

 words are written in pencil, the pencil spelling is 

 modern, while that of the ink is old," — and the 

 words "body" and "offal" were given as in- 

 stances. From every mouth one heard this argu- 

 ment — " the spelling of the words in pencil is 

 always modern, but in ink the spelling is old," and 

 in every instance almost this word "body" fur- 

 nished the evidence. Now what are the facts ? 

 When we examined the Folio — when we looked 

 "for this word body" in "the bold hand of the 

 present century," — we assure our readers we 

 coui.d not see it. We do not say that the tail 

 of the "y" is not there ; but we repeat, although 

 we tried in various lights, and with the assistance 

 of a powerful magnifier, we could not see it. But 

 we saw, and we think Mr. Hamilton was bound 



to have stated it, that in the text of the Folio 

 "body" was frequently, if not invariably, spelt 

 with a u y." But, says Mr. Hamilton, "bodie" 

 was written instead of body to give the requisite 

 appearance of antiquity. We deny that this is 

 true, and one fact is worth fifty assertions. We 

 have seen lately in a public department the 

 rou^di draft of a document of the middle of the 

 seventeenth century, in which occurs the word 

 " sorry" spelt, be it remarked, with the " y." 

 A fair copy of that very document exists in the 

 same department, made at or about the same time, 

 and there we find the selfsame word spelt not 

 with the u y," but with the "?'e,"— not "sorry," but 

 "sorrie." But this is not all. In this very Perkins 

 Folio we have, in the handwriting of the Old Correc- 

 tor himself, body with the "?/" so plain that no one 

 could have overlooked it. This in common fair- 

 ness ought to have been stated. Mr. Hamilton's 

 position puts him above the suspicion of the wil- 

 ful suppression of the truth ; but the omission to 

 notice this important fact is, to say the least, very 

 unfortunate*, and affords an instance of the way 

 in which Mr. Hamilton's partisanship has led him 

 to strain and catch at anything which could be 

 tortured into a circumstance of suspicion against 

 Mr. Collier. " When I am particularly dull," re- 

 marked the Spectator, " be sure there is some 

 meaning under it." When Mr. Collier falls into any 

 trifling mistake (which even Mr. Hamilton's ex- 

 perience might have taught him is not so very un- • 

 common a thing for any man to do), or when his 

 meaning or conduct is not altogether understood 

 by the gentlemen who have assailed him (often by 

 their own fault), some fraudulent design is in- 

 stantly suspected and supposed to be concealed 

 under it. 



The result of our examination of the Perkins 

 Folio was, as we have said, the confirmation of our 

 faith in the Old Corrector, and a conviction that, 

 up to the present time, justice has not been done 

 to him. We have hitherto spoken of him as the 

 Old Corrector ; we are, however, inclined to believe 

 that the Perkins Folio is the work of two hands at 

 least. Good will come out of evil, if one of the 

 results of the present unhappy controversy be a 

 thorough critical examination of the genuineness 

 of this remarkable book. 



The high character of some of the emendations 

 has been admitted by great Shakspearian authori- 

 ties. Where did they come from ? Their merit 

 will be admitted by men who would as strongly 

 deny Mr. Collier's ability to conceive them, as we 

 would his disposition to misrepresent their origin. 

 Such an investigation as we desire may show that 



* It is equallv unfortunate that Mr. Hamilton, in de- 

 scribing the Dulwich Letter, should have omitted all 

 notice of the envelope with its marked Caution, which 

 is, we are informed, in the handwriting of the late Mr. 

 Amyot. 



