form was The Poetical Decameron or Ten Conversations on English Poets and Poetry, Particularly of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James, 1820, 2 vol. r. 8vo. This effort met with the hearty commendation of Hallam. The Poet's Pilgrimage, a poem composed at an early date was published in 1822 and in 1825-27 Collier reedited Dodsley's Old Plays, introducing 6 new dramas, and in 1828 added a supplementary volume, containing five plays of the Elizabethan period.

His first authoritative work was the History of English Dramatic Poetry to the Time of Shakespeare and Annals of the Stage to the Restoration, 1831, 3rd. 8vo. He next compiled a Bibliographical and Critical Catalogue to Lord Ellesmere's collection of rare English Books, privately printed.

Collier's researches in Lord Ellesmere's library gave him the material for New Facts regarding the Life of Shakespeare, 1835. The same year he published New Particulars, and in 1839, Further Particulars. In 1842-44 appeared his valuable 8vol. ed. of the Works of Shakespeare, with the various Readings, Notes, a Life of the Poet and a History of the Early English Stage. In 1848 he published a most invaluable work entitled Shakespeare's Library, a Collection of the Ancient Romances, Novels, Legends, Poems, and Histories used by Shakespeare as the foundation of His Dramas, now First Collected and Accurately Reprinted from the Original Edi

tions.

The later works of Mr. Collier, excepting the books brought forth by the "Controversy," were an edition of Shakespeare in 8 vol. (concluded in 1878) and a new edition of his History of English Dramatic Poetry, 3 vol. 1879. At the end of this work he reprinted his Memoirs of the Principal Actors in Shakespeare's Plays when Originally Performed, which was first published by the old Shakespeare Society.

Mr. Collier was for a long time Director of the Shakespeare Society, and edited for it and the Camden Society a number of works. In 1850 he was made Vice-President of the Society of Antiquaries. In consequence of his valuable assistance in cataloguing the treasures of the British Museum and for other services, he received an annual pension of £100 from the government.

[The following bibliographical sketch of the “controversy "has been kindly furnished by Mr. J. Parker Norris, for many years a warm personal friend of Mr. Collier.]

What is known as the "Collier Controversy ' called forth a perfect avalanche of pamphlets books, and newspaper and magazine articles.

In 1852 Mr. Collier published his Notes and Emendations to the text of Shakespeare's Plays. This first edition was followed by a second in 1853. In these editions Mr. Collier gave a history of the finding of the corrected Folio of 1632, and many of the emendations contained in it.

Mr. Collier also printed for private circulation some additional facsimiles of the emendations. which have become extremely rare, owing to the small number issued.

The same year that the first edition was published Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps issued a brochure entitled A few remarks on the Emendation who smothers her with painting," 8vo., London: 1852.

The next year Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps brought out Curiosities of Modern Shakespeare criticism. 8vo. London: 1853.

The same year Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps issued another pamphlet entitled Observations on some of the manuscript Emendations of the text of Shakespeare, and are they copyright? 8vo., London: 1853.

Mr. Samuel Weller Singer, who has edited two editions of Shakespeare, now published a violent volume against the emendations, which he called The Text of Shakespeare Vindicated from the interpolations and corruptions advocated by John Payne Collier, Esq., in his Notes and Emendations, 8vo. London: 1853.

Again the indefatigable Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps entered the field of controversy with another pamphlet-Observations on the Shakesperian Forgeries at Bridgewater House," etc., 8vo., London: 1853. This was printed for private circulation.

Mr. Alexander Dyce, a most learned and acute critic, and for a long time the friend of Mr. Collier, but who had now become his enemy, published a volume called A few Notes on Shakespeare; with occasional remarks on the emendations of the manuscript corrector in Mr. Collier's copy of the folio, 1862. 8vo., London: 1853.

The same year Mr. Joseph Hunter published a little book with a very long title-A few Words in reply to the Animadversions of the Rev. Mr. Dyce on Mr. Hunter's " Disquisition on the Tempest," (1839); and his New Illustrations of the Life, Studies and Writings of Shakespeare (1845); contained in his work entitled "A Few Notes, etc., etc." By the author of the Disquisition and Illustrations. 8vo., London: 1853.

Mr. Charles Knight now appeared with a pamphlet Old Lamps or New? A Plea for the original Editions of the Text of Shakespeare, etc. 16mo. London: 1853.

In 1853 Mr. Collier also published an edition of the plays of Shakespeare, in one volume quarto, containing the emendations embodied in the text. Mr. Richard Grant White's Shakespeare Scholar, 8vo., New York: 1854, noticed and commented on many of the emendations.

In 1855 Mr. É. A. Brae published anonymously a pamphlet entitled Literary Cookery with reference to matter attributed to Coleridge and Shakespeare, etc., 8vo. London: 1855. Mr. Brae first sent the MS. of this pamphlet, in the form of a letter, to the London Athenæum, and that journal refused to print it. Mr. Collier subsequently commenced an action for libel against the publisher of the pamphlet, but the action failed.

The subsequent year Mr. Collier published Seven Lectures on Shakespeare and Milton by the late S. T. Coleridge, etc. 8vo, London: 1856. This work also contained a list of all the MS. emendations in Mr. Collier's corrected 1632 folio.

In 1858 Mr. Collier published a new edition of the works of Shakespeare, in six volumes, containing the emendations.

The next year Dr. C. M. Ingleby published The Shakespeare Fabrications, etc. 16 mo., London: 1859, and in 1860 Mr. N. E. S. A. Hamilton issued his Inquiry into the Genuineness of the manuscript corrections in Mr. J. Payne Collier's annotated Shakespeare, etc., small 4to.

23

The same year Mr. Thomas Duffy Hardy, Assistant Keeper of the Public Records, issued A Review of the present state of the Shakespearian Controversy. 8vo., London: 1860.

Next Mr. A. E. Brae, still writing anonymously, published his Collier, Coleridge and Shakespeare, A Review. By the author of "Literary Cookery." 8vo., London: 1860.

The following year Dr. C. M. Ingleby issued his Complete View of the Shakespeare Controversy. 8vo., London: 1861. The book is what its title indicates. It is truly a most elaborate history of the whole controversy, but tinged with a strong bias against Mr. Collier.

Any one desiring to be informed about this interesting subject, cannot do better than consult this volume, bearing in mind the bias against Mr. Collier which it exhibits.

Finally Mr. Collier issued for private circulation a very interesting volume entitled Trilogy Conversations between three friends on the emendations of Shakespeare's Text contained in Mr. Collier's corrected Folio, 1632. Small 4to, London: 1874, a copy of which Mr. Collier kindly gave me. Only 50 copies were printed.

In 1875 Mr. Collier began what was really the last great work of his life, a new edition of Shakespeare's works, in small quarto form, most beautifully printed, the edition of which was limited to fifty copies. It was concluded in 1878, and is in eight volumes. A presentation copy from the Editor is in my library.

It contains the latest results of his study of the text, and is different from any of his previous editions. Many of the corrected folio 1632 emendations are embodied in the text.

As to the real history of the emendations, that will never be known, but will remain like many other things in literature a puzzle for all ages. Many have thought that Mr. Collier forged the emendations, but there is no reason for thinking so. I have too high an opinion of his character, and the great good he has done the cause of early English literature to think so myself for even an instant.

Perhaps some mischievous fellow, like George Steevens, that Puck of commentators, was at the bottom of their authorship. I believe Mr. Collier's story as to the finding of the 1632 folio, etc., implicitly. He was a great scholar, a most industrious worker, and one of the kindest men that ever lived. Many years ago I was able to do him a slight service, and he never forgot it. It led to many years of warm friendship which will always be remembered by me with feelings of the most pleasant character.

MESSRS. EDITORS: Permit me to suggest that an interesting and useful Department of SHAKESPEARIANA can be had, by making it the depository of Critical and Explanatory Notes on the TEXT of the Poet; conjectural suggestions of readings and punctuation; grammatical and historical scraps illustrative of obsolete words, idioms, and customs; collations from contemporary authors; and all such odds and ends as a close and industrious student pencils on the margins and fly leaves of his books, slips of paper, envelopes, etc., to be forthwith mislaid, and never ready when wanted for reference. The trouble would be but little more to send these to SHAKESPEARIANA, where, if found noteworthy, they can be methodized and printed, and thus made valuable in future, both to the writers, and to every one interested in Shakespearian literature. "When found, make a Note of" is a sagacious proverb; and had the good Captain never uttered another word, this would have ranked him among the philosophers; but he ought to have added "and lay it by where you can find it" to make it efficient. To the Shakespeare notes, more probably than to any other, is it due that the early numbers of Notes and Queries have become so scarce as to be practically unobtainable; and the same is measureably true of Sabin's Bibliopolist, and Robinson's Epitome, in this country. It is not necessary that these Notes be in every case original; frequently a Shakespearian suggestion, or phraseological explanation, occurs in miscellaneous reading, that is apt to be lost for want of attention; and all such will find their level of merit when brought together in the crucible of textual criticism. I should stipulate that they be new, or at least something not commonly known, conservative, pointed, and brief;

Here "dumbe" is a misprint for dumb'd; but what in the world is "arme-gaunte"? Some explain it as thin in the "arm" or shoulder, indicating a high-bred animal; others, a war-steed, gaunt or lean by overwork, from carrying its own coat-of-mail, and a full-armed, heavy-weight rider. Then come the emendators: Hanmer gives "arm-girt," the reading adopted by almost all modern editors; Steevens, "termagant," a conjecture of Mason's; Becket, arm-vaunt"; Jackson, "war-gaunt"; Singer, " arrogant," a conjecture of Boaden's; Lettsom, 'rampaunt"; Bulloch, "merchant"; and, lastly, Mr. Kinnear, in his new book* on the tough places in Shakespeare, warmly advocates "ardent."

But is not the old word correct, only it has never been accurately explained? Brinsley Nicholson, M.D., of London, says so, and as a sound and trustworthy critic he is seldom astray. In the Antiquarian Magazine (London), for April, 1883, he says that "arm-gaunt" is armgaunted, the same as arm-gauntleted, armorgloved; the horse's caparison, by its links and hinges, fitting it closely all over, as we still say, like a glove, a skin-fit. In French it would have been ganté en fer, but Shakespeare spelled it gaunt because he so spelled gauntlet. Armgirt" expresses the sense, and that is probably the reason it is usually adopted; but it is very prosaic compared with "arm-gaunt," itself a striking word-picture, and probably coined by the poet. To the audiences at the Globe and Blackfriars, who often witnessed such steel-clad, proudly-curvetting steeds, the term would be perfectly intelligible. We have all seen pictures of them; and in the Tower of London I have myself seen statues of horses exactly so armgaunted. The omission of the participialed after t and d is a well-known usage of Shakespeare. Cf., "the bloat King," in Hamlet; an enshield beauty," in Measure for Measure; "an ingraft infirmity," Othello; "a heart never yet taint with love," in I. Henry VI, and many others. We find the same also in Bacon.

It seems to me, then, that Dr. Nicholson has given us an explanation of the old term that, like the word itself, fits the context of the passage all round, like a glove. He was no lean, raw-boned hack that Gen. Antony mounted, but a fullblooded war-horse, dressed from head to foot in a suit of steel plates so accurately fitted, that no motion was impeded. Proud of himself, his harness, and his rider, he "smelled the battle afar off," as we may know at once by his neighing so high that poor Alexas was perfectly dumbfounded.

I have in mind two or three other Notes on the same play, but this is already too long; and not

defined it :" That which,were it only for the retirement it procured me, was worth more to me than all popularity." Rolfe accepts this interpretation, but Hudson defends Delius by paraphrasing the lines: Which would have exceeded all popular estimate but that it withdrew me from my public duties."

this line to mean unless, if not, which gives the Schmidt, Shakespeare-Lexicon defines but in passage the meaning assigned to it by Delius and Hudson. It seems to me that this is the only interpretation that accords with the sentiment that is swaying Prospero at the moment. He is stung by the recollection that by his exclusive devotion to those studies that were his passion he had left the State at the mercy of his unscrupulous brother, and brought long banishment upon himself and his child. Perhaps some of your readers can give a good argument in defense of the other explanation. H. S. A.

HENRY IRVING.

HENRY IRVING is England's greatest living interpreter of the Shakespearian drama. From his countrymen he has been for several years the recipient of honors such as have never before been conferred upon any actor of the English stage. On the fourth of July, previous to his departure for America, he was entertained at a banquet in London and the highest tribute was paid to his genius by the memorable assembly on that occasion. Men of all professions and pursuits met to do honor to the English stage represented by the man who had been foremost in the endeavor to elevate and refine it and to keep it in that atmosphere of the ideal from which the modern drama, left entirely to commercial enterprise, has such a constant tendency to sink. Lord Chief Justice Coleridge who presided at the dinner spoke high praise of Irving when he said "It does not become me now, I have not the skill or power, to analyze critically Mr. Irving's genius, to weigh it in the balance of opinion, or to say that in this or in that it is deficient. It is sufficient to be sure that he has the extraordinary and unusual power of conveying the conception of the part which he acts, and making us comprehend what is in his own mind and what is his own distinct intellectual conviction."

The popularity of Irving has been of slow growth and was attained only by that patient discipline and tireless devotion to perfection of detail without which greatness in any line of work cannot be won. John Henry Brodribb Irving was born at Keintan, near Glastonbury, in Somerset, on February 6, 1838. He appears to have had native dramatic tendencies. At school it was his passion to declaim those poems classed by his VOL. I.-4.

worthy teacher among the “theatrical." The enthusiasm and natural force of the boy attracted the attention of Creswick the actor who encouraged him and advised him from his own wide experience. At the age of 14 Irving was placed in the office of an East India merchant in London, but the larger part of his time he contrived to employ in an elocution class. Effort breeds ability and the boy Irving, glowing with the consciousness of enhanced capacity, soon resolved upon the stage as his profession. His first public appearance was at the opening of the Lyceum Theater, Sunderland, in the part of Orleans in "Richelieu." His excitement so overmastered him that the result was by no means successful. He played again as Cleomenes in "Winter's Tale" with no more satisfactory effect. At this period he one night entirely forgot the words of his part owing it is said to his refusal to learn them on Sunday. Suddenly calling to mind an irrelevant line from another play he exclaimed: "Come on to the market-place and I'll tell thee further," and fled precipitately from the scene followed by the laughter of the audience and the curses of the stage manager. He remained more than two years in training at the Theater Royal, Edinburgh, and came in 1859 to London to play under the management of Augustus Harris at the Princess's Theater. The engagement however was very quickly canceled, as Irving found that he was condemning himself to perpetual mediocrity by binding himself to the playing of subordinate parts. He returned to the "provinces" and with patient practice and severe discipline sought to perfect all the details of his art. He played for a long time in comedy at Manchester, but in 1865 preparatory to going again to London he undertook in spite of the jokes and mockery of his

66

friends to impersonate Hamlet and achieved at once a position and complete success. On coming to London he declined Fechter's terms and joined Dion Boucicault's provincial company on condition that if he should develop artistic ability he should have an engagement as leading actor. His first part in London was that of Doricourt in the Belles' Stratagem," at the St. James Theater. He played successfully at the Queen's Theater and the Vaudeville. At the latter he first became notorious through his performance of Digby Grant in "Two Roses." Until this time he had excelled in acting parts of the Bill Sykes order, but whether in comedy, melodrama or tragedy, he seemed to lie close to the secret of the character he was studying. After years of routine labor, playing Mathias, Charles I., Eugene Aram, and Richelieu he appeared in the autumn of 1874 as Hamlet. It was the culminating moment in his career. As early as 3 o'clock in the afternoon of the 31st of October," says the Dublin Monthly Magazine, (September 1879), "the crowd began to form at the pit door of the Lyceum and soon a struggling, seething mass of human beings extended down the covered way right out into the Strand. The pit that night was a memorable spectacle. Never had that tribunal been so highly charged with anxiety, impatience and enthusiasm." The success was beyond all expectation, and the impression made by this great achievement was deep and widespread. The newspapers and magazines of the next few months are flooded with dissertations on Mr. Irving's Hamlet or on particular characteristics of it. Irving had not expected to play Hamlet more than 50 nights; the popular interest was still strong at twice that many; Irving was the Dane for 200 successive nights. Macbeth was repeated 80 times, and Othello followed close upon it. From this time Irving's right to the title of a great interpreter of Shakespeare has been very generally allowed. He has enjoyed the friendship of Gladstone and Tennyson and secured for the latter the production of "Queen Mary," himself playing the part of Philip.

There has not of course been absolute unanimity among the guides of public opinion as to the exact rank among great actors which Mr. Irving is entitled to take, Indeed there is still a violent controversy raging as to his real merits, some critics insisting that he is great only in melodrama, others finding serious fault with his mannerisms and taking exception to his love of splendor and attention to minutiæ. It is particularly important if we would pass a proper judgment upon Irving and carry away from his acting the most valuable results, that we should discover his theory of his art, and fortunately the means of ascertaining this have already been placed in our hands. There has been published this year an excellent translation by Walter Herries Pollock of Diderot's Paradox on the Comedian, and the book which is the very best ever written on the actor's art has been enriched by an introduction from the pen of Mr. Irving. The paradox which Diderot so eloquently expands and comments on is that "sensibility" or the display of actually felt passion is out of place on the stage and is bad art. This theorem became the

66

basis of Lessing's valuable dramatic criticism and recently Gustave Garcia in a work dedicated to Irving, and M. Coquelin of the Comedie Francais in his very interesting little book on the Actor and his Art have still further confirmed and developed it. Diderot is undoubtedly right in his theory and has been agreed with by all good thinkers, but Mr. Irving, whose introduction is no less interesting for the fallacy in his analysis, ignores the circumstances that condition Diderot's view. He is vexed at the passionless attitude indicated by Diderot toward himself and his fellow actors. Irving has a large conception of the range and value of his art, and is jealous that the art of acting shall be treated as seriously as the art of composing. Until Diderot has been carefully studied and often read, the paradox is repellent. It seems to disregard the possibility of genius in the actor and makes of him a mere machine, capable of so much routine work. Irving's verdict might then have been anticipated. Moreover Diderot's definition of the great actor is contrary to all Irving's ideas of what constitutes fine acting. Diderot says: What then is a great actor? A man who having learnt the words set down for him by the author fools you thoroughly whether in tragedy or comedy. Like other gymnastics, acting taxes only the bodily strength. The actor feels neither trouble nor sorrow, nor depression of soul. All these emotions he has given to you. The actor is tired, you are happy; he has had exertion without feeling, you feeling without exertion." On the other hand the Academy of Feb. 10, 1877 said: "Irving is not a mechanical actor and is therefore very unequal. There are few actors of the first rank on the stage of whom it is more difficult to speak finally from the experience of only one performance." Diderot shows conclusively that all work of enduring excellence is done with the head and that actors who play from the heart merely have no self-possession and are necessarily very unequal in their acting. But says Irving, "the exaltation of sensibility in art may be difficult, but it is none the less real to all who have felt its power." We have, then, in Mr. Irving, an actor of a very different style from Forrest, Salvini, and the men of the muscular school. He is a man of large scholastic attainments, and fine poetic instinct. Feeling deeply the secret of the character he assumes, he aims to interpret that secret to his audience by any means not false to art. Improbably no Shakespearian drama does the intellectual capacity of Irving show more clearly than in Shylock. The Shylock of Booth is an avaricious, bloodthirsty villain, that of Irving in the words of M. D. Conway, "a fatal, powerful and pathetic character," and Mr. Conway goes on to say that it has been chiefly through the efforts of Henry Irving that the character of Shylock has been divested of the malign associations burdened upon it by tradition. Much might be written upon the original interpretations of Shakespeare that Mr. Irving has given us but it is our intention to extend a hearty welcome to Mr. Irving in whom we recognize a living Shakespearian teacher rather than to anticipate criticism.