Query 1. Does MR. COLLIER claim a copyright in the _Emendations on the Text
of Shakspeare_ lately published by him, and derived from MS. corrections in
his old copy of the folio of 1632? He seems to intimate as much in what he
says at p. 13. of his Introduction, when he speaks of a certain phrase
never being again seen in any edition of Shakspeare, "unless it be
reproduced by some one who, _having no right to use the emendations of our
folio 1632_, adheres _of necessity_ to the {154} antiquated blunder, and
pertinaciously attempts to justify it."
I doubt much whether he is entitled to any such privilege. If the words as
restored were really those of Shakspeare, as is alleged, I do not see how
the writer of the MS. corrections could _himself_ claim any property in
them; and if _he_ had none, much less can MR. COLLIER have. It would be a
pity were the public to be deprived of the benefit of the corrections by
the use of them being exclusively confined to MR. COLLIER'S editions.
Query 2. Does the writer of the MS. corrections occasionally give reasons
in support of the changes proposed? At p. 306., MR. COLLIER says: "The
manuscript corrector _assures us_ that although the intention of the
dramatist is evident, a decided misprint has crept into the line."
Again, at p. 305., MR. COLLIER says: "For 'senseless obstinate,' the
corrector of the folio 1632 _states that we must substitute_ words," &c.
Again, at p. 352.: "A _note_ in the folio 1632, induces us to believe that
Shakspeare did not use the term," &c. The MS. corrector is also sometimes
made to tell us, that a certain error is the printer's, and another that of
the copyist. Perhaps these are only rhetorical forms of expression, to
intimate that certain corrections appeared on the margin of the folio 1632,
and MR. COLLIER'S own opinion of their propriety.