dication of
the period at which he did his work. But it must be confessed that
the points enumerated present a very strong, and, when regarded by
themselves, an apparently incontrovertible case against Mr. Collier and
the genuineness of the folios and the manuscripts which he has brought
to light. Combined with the evidence of his untrustworthiness, they
compel, even from us who examine the question without prejudice, the
unwilling admission that there can be no longer any doubt that he has
been concerned in bringing to public notice, under the prestige of his
name, a mass of manuscript matter of seeming antiquity and authority
much of which at least is spurious. We say, without prejudice; for
it cannot be too constantly kept in mind that the question of the
genuineness of the manuscript readings in Mr. Collier's folio--that is,
of the good faith in which they were written--has absolutely nothing
whatever to do with that of their value or authority, at least in our
judgment. Six years before the appearance of Mr. Hamilton's first letter
impeaching their genuineness, we had expressed the decided opinion that
they were "entitled to no other consideration than is due to their
intrinsic excellence";[L] and this opinion is now shared even by the
authority which gave them at first the fullest and most uncompromising
support.[M]

[Footnote L: See _Putnam's Magazine_, October, 1853, and _Shakespeare's
Scholar_, 1854, p. 74.]

[Footnote M: See the London _Athenaeum_ of January 8th, 1853:--"We
cannot hesitate to infer that there must have been _something more than
mere conjecture_,--some authority from which they were derived.... The
consideration of the nine omitted lines stirs up Mr. Collier to a little
greater boldness on the question of authority; but, after all, we do not
think he goes the full length which the facts would warrant."

Compare this with the following extracts from the same journal of July
9th, 1859;--"The folio never had any ascertained external authority.
All the warrant it has ever brought to reasonable critics is internal."
"If anybody, in the heat of argument, ever claimed for them [the MS.
readings] a right of acceptance beyond the emendations of Theobald,
Malone, Dyce, and Singer, (that is, a right not justified by their
obvious utility or beauty,) such a claim must have been untenable, by
whomsoever urged."]

Other points sought to be established against Mr. Collier and the
genuineness of his manus