elaborate impertinence and ornate and fanciful conjecture. The only kindling that seems desirable here is such as will throw real light on the Poet, not such as would smoke him into vastness.

Touching the Historical Sketch of the English Drama, the writer's main purpose therein was to show, what has not always been duly attended to, that the Drama, as we have it in Shakespeare, was a national growth, not an individual creation; and that we are probably indebted for it as much to the public taste and preparation of the time as to the genius of the man. The Shakespearian Drama came, not merely or mainly because Shakespeare was the greatest of human intellects, but rather because he was an Englishman, breathing, from the cradle upwards, the atmosphere of English life and thought, and concentrating in himself the whole spirit and efficacy of the English mind and character, as these had ripened up through centuries of development and progress. In his day, the Drama was and long had been an intense national passion; a passion which kept growing deeper and stronger, till at length an age of daring innovation and expansion set it free; while the further want of an omniloquent organ to give it voice and expression was met and answered in Shakespeare. Thus the time and the man were suited to each other; and it was in his direct, fearless, whole-hearted sympathy with the soul of the time that the man both lost himself and found his power: which is doubtless one reason why we see so little of him in his work; he being too

much kindled to think of himself or of the figure he was making. So that the work could not possibly have been done anywhere but in England, the England of Spenser and Raleigh and Bacon; nor could it have been done there and then by any man but Shakespeare. In his hand, what had long been a national passion became emphatically a National Institution; how full of life, is shown in that it has ever since refused to die. And it seems well worth the while to bring this clearly into view, inasmuch as it serves to remove the subject upon deeper and broader principles of criticism than have commonly stood uppermost in the minds of the Poet's critics. To impart anything like just and adequate ideas touching the origin and progress of the English Drama, the Editor knew no better, nor indeed any other way, than by giving analyses of various specimens in the several forms or stages through which that Drama passed. It is not unlikely that he may have overdone this part of the work; for the subject has a certain fascination for him, insomuch as to disqualify him perhaps for judging how far it might prove edifying or attractive to others.

Of his slender qualifications for the task, perhaps it is enough for the Editor to say that he is deeply sensible of them; that every step he has taken in the work has reminded him of them; and that none, it is hoped, will be more apt to charge him, than he is to charge himself, with presumption in undertaking it. It is but justice to add, that the work sought him, not he the work. Fortunately, by far

the most important part of the task, that of setting forth a pure and genuine text of the Poet, is one where patient industry and care may in some measure be made to supply the lack of other qualification.

In the course of his work the Editor has incurred many obligations; divers facilities having been kindly offered him before they were sought, and others as kindly granted upon his hinting a request. In fact, he has met with nothing but the most generous and hearty spirit of accommodation. To Mr. Charles Folsom, the late accomplished and gentlemanly librarian of the Boston Athenæum; to Mr. Henry T. Parker, formerly of Boston, now of London, England; to George C. Shattuck, M. D., Mr. Edwin P. Whipple, and Mr. Joseph Burnett, of Boston; also, to the learned and liberal Dr. Cogswell, of the Astor Library, the Hon. Gulian C. Verplanck. Mr. Evert A. Duyckinck, Mr. George L. Duyckinck, and Mr. Edward S. Gould, of New York; - to all these he has been and is indebted for important favours. Nor must the stereotypers of the Boston Foundry go unremembered; whom he has found as fine a set of fellows to work with as an author or editor ought to desire.

BOSTON, September, 1871.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

ΤΟ

THE REVISED EDITION.

Or these eleven volumes six were stereotyped and in print before the appearance of what have come to be known as "The Collier Emendations.” In the five volumes stereotyped since, we have aimed, as our footnotes will show, to make a cautious, but not illiberal use of them. The same is now done in the first six volumes, the requisite alterations of the text being made in the plates. Of course it is impracticable to supply foot-notes of these changes; and, as it were scarce allowable to adopt them without some notice, there is no way but to point them out in the manner here used.

This is not the place for canvassing at length the general subject of those emendations. But it seems very proper to add a few remarks, by way of intimating our judgment concerning them, and the use Mr. Collier saw fit to make of them. First, however, we must state a few items of history.

In the years 1842-4, Mr. Collier set forth a complete edition of Shakespeare's Works, restoring the text with great care and accuracy, and embodying a large fund of antiquarian and other lore in the form of introductions and notes. The edition has many points of excellence; but there is one fault running through it, which must ever keep it from passing into general use. This fault

is a vicious and absurd extreme of adherence to the original copies. Previous editors had licentiously tampered with the text, acting too much on the principle of giving what, in their judgment, Shakespeare ought to have written: Mr. Collier rightly acted on the principle of giving what Shakespeare did write, but made far too little allowance for the errors of transcribers and printers.

The first collected edition of Shakespeare's plays was printed in 1623, in folio form. Before this, seventeen of his plays had been separately issued, some of them several times, in quarto. The folio of 1623 was reprinted, with some corrections and some corruptions, in 1632. These several issues are our only authorities for ascertaining the text. All of them abound in palpable misprints; besides, they vary a good deal among themselves, and thus give large scope for criticism in a choice of readings.

In 1851, Mr. Collier lighted on a copy of the second folio containing a large number of manuscript alterations, amounting, in all, to some 20,000, though much the greater portion were mere changes in the punctuation. The source of them was unknown, the date uncertain. Mr. Collier at first supposed them to be nearly as old as the volume itself, and that the maker of them might have had access to the Poet's own manuscripts, or something about as good. In 1853, Mr. Collier published most of the verbal changes in a separate volume, with an Introduction, arguing strongly for their authenticity. He put forth a theory as to their genesis, which, if fully made out, would leave us no choice in regard to them. The theory, however, was mostly spun out of his own brain, and had no competent facts to rest upon. But, though maintaining those changes to be authentic in the mass, he nevertheless took the liberty of questioning and disallowing their authority in particular cases; as if he had