SHAKESPEARE 819 condition, it would probably fetch not less than 1,000. The folio of 1623 was reprint- ed with a tolerable approach to accuracy in London in 1808 ; a very beautiful reprint, in which no errors have been detected, was put forth by Lionel Booth (London, 1862-'4) ; and a photo-zincographic facsimile, made under the care of Mr. Howard Staunton, appeared in 1865. The quartos have also been reissued in facsimile at various dates under the care of Mr. J. O. Halliwell ; and the two remarkable quartos of " Hamlet" (1603 and 1604), in the possession of the duke of Devonshire, were reprinted together on parallel pages, as " The Devonshire Hamlets " (London, 1860), edited by Mr. Samuel Timmins. Justin Winsor, su- perintendent of the Boston public library, has published "Bibliography of the original Quar- tos and Folios of Shakespeare, with particular reference to Copies in America, with 62 He- liotype Facsimiles " (Boston, 1875). The text of Shakespeare's works, excepting his poems, was left in so corrupt a state by the early printers, that, the author's manuscripts hav- ing perished, it needed much editorial care to bring it even into a tolerably sound condition. This subject has engaged the attention of crit- ics and scholars for more than a century and a half, and has produced a literature in which much learning, ingenuity, and philological and even philosophical speculation are mingled with ignorance, stupidity, frivolity, and bad temper. "When to the works of the editors and textual critics are added those of the philo- sophical and the exegetical, and the illustra- tors, we have a library in itself. The best in- dex to Shakespearian literature yet published is that of Franz Thimm (12mo, London, 1865 ; 2d ed., 1872), which has superseded that of P. H. Sillig (8vo, Leipsic, 1854) ; but the former is often incorrect, and is imperfect even up to its date ; while that published by J. O. Hal- liwell (London, 1841) is very incomplete. A nearly perfect and generally correct catalogue of Shakespeariana is to be found in Bohn's edi- tion of Lowndes's "Bibliographer's Manual" (London, 1864) ; but it is badly arranged, and deformed by many important errors in names, dates, and titles. A complete and accurate critical catalogue of Shakespeariana is still a desideratum. The editions of Shakespeare's works which, for their text or comments, are worthy of notice are : Nicholas Kowe's (7 vols. 8vo, London, 1709), the first in which the text was submitted to collation and revision ; Alex- ander Pope's (6 vols. 4to, 1725), probably the worst ever published ; Lewis Theobald's (7 vols. 8vo, 1733), in which a great advance was made in the rectification of the text; Sir Thomas Hanmer's (6 vols. 4to, Oxford, 1744) ; Bishop Warburton's (8 vols. 8vo, London, 1747) ; Dr. Johnson's (8 vols. 8vo, 1765), the value of which is in inverse proportion to the reputation of its editor ; Edward Capell's (10 vols. 8vo, 1767), most laboriously and care- fully edited, but with little judgment or taste ; Johnson's edition with additional notes by George Steevens (11 vols. 8vo, 1773); the same with additional notes by Isaac Reed (16 vols. 8vo, 1793) ; Edmund Malone's edition, a most important one (11 vols. 8vo, 1790) ; Isaac Reed's, an enlargement of that of 1793, with the notes and readings of various commenta- tors, commonly called the first variorum (21 vols., 1813) ; Malone's second edition, com- pleted and superintended after his death by James Boswell, jr. (21 vols., 1821), "the" va- riorum ; Samuel Weller Singer's (10 vols. fcp. 8vo, Cm'swick, 1826), an edition marked by all the traits of the critical school of the last century, but very popular from its beauty of typography and its judicious selections from the notes of previous editors. Much had thus far been done to correct and illustrate the text of Shakespeare ; but it had suffered almost as much from the presumption, the perverse- ness, and the narrow precision of his editors and commentators, as it had profited by their laborious investigation of the literature and the manners of his time. The critical spirit of the last century was narrow and oppressed with deference to classical models. The au- thoritative position of the first folio was little regarded, and its readings were set aside with- out cause as well as with cause, at the caprice of the editor. But the minds of men had come more and more under the influence of Shake- speare's genius. It was found that he was not to be judged by the standards of the schools, but that he was a law unto himself. During the first quarter of the present century there ! was a growing dissatisfaction with the re- sults of the editorial labor of the last upon the works of Shakespeare. The result was a new school of commentators and new editions of the plays. First in point of time, and most near- ly absolute in deference to the first folio, was the pictorial edition of Mr. Charles Knight (8 vols. 8vo, London, 1839-'41 ; revised ed., 1867). This was the extreme recoil of the pendulum. It was immediately followed by the edition of Mr. John Payne Collier (8 vols. 8vo, 1841-'4). Mr. Collier worked in the spirit of an antiquary rather than a critic, and made much of readings derived from the rarest and most inaccessible quarters. He opposed conjectural emendation with a bigotry which rivalled Mr. Knight's Quixotic championship of the first folio, and often set reason at naught in favor of ' ' the oldest authority." A judicious eclectic use was made of the labors of Mr. Knight and Mr. Collier by Gulian C. Verplanck, who prepared an edition (3 vols. 8vo, New York, 1847), to which he contributed a large amount of origi- nal matter distinguished for soundness of judg- ment and elegance of taste. An edition pub- lished under the direction of the Rev.^H. .N. Hudson (11 vols. 12mo, Boston, 1850- noticeable chiefly for the true appreciation, subtle thought, and manly vigorous style of tb< essays introductory to each play. In ll J. O. Halliwell began the publication of a stu-
