discovered them chiefly in the Bridgewater and Dulwich collections.

In his professed reprint of one manuscript (Mrs. Alleyn's letter) Mr.
Collier has inserted several lines relating to Shakespeare which could
not possibly have formed a part of the passage which he professes to
reprint.

In the above enumeration we have not included the many complete and
partial erasures upon the margins of Mr. Collier's folio; because these,
although they are inconsistent with the authoritative introduction of
the manuscript readings, do not affect the question of the good faith of
the person who introduced those readings, or serve as any indication 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