|
See also: English Shakespearian critic, was See also: born in See also: London, on the 11th of See also: January 1789
.
His See also: father, See also: John Dyer Collier (1762–1825), was a successful journalist, and his connexion with the
See also: press obtained for his son a position on the See also: Morning See also: Chronicle as See also: leader writer, dramatic critic and reporter, which continued till 1847; he was also for some See also: time a reporter for The Times
.
He was summoned before the See also: House of See also: Commons in 1819 for giving an incorrect report of a speech by See also: Joseph Hume
.
He entered the See also: Middle See also: Temple in 1811, but was not called to the See also: bar until 1829
.
The delay was partly due to his indiscretion in See also: publishing the Criticisms on the Bar (1819) by " Amicus Curiae." His leisure was given to the study of See also: Shakespeare and the early English drama
.
After some minor publications he produced in 1825–1827 a new edition of See also: Dodsley's Old Plays, and in 1833 a supplementary See also: volume entitled Five Old Plays
.
In 1831 appeared his See also: History of English Dramatic See also: Poetry and See also: Annals of the Stage to the Restoration, a badly arranged, but valuable See also: work
.
It obtained for him the See also: post of librarian to the duke of Devonshire, and, subsequently, See also: access to the chief collections of early English literature throughout the See also: kingdom, especially to the treasures of See also: Bridgwater House
.
These opportunities were unhappily misused to effect a series of See also: literary fabrications, which may be charitably, and perhaps not unjustly, attributed to literary monomania, but of which it is difficult to speak with See also: patience, so completely did they for a long time bewilder the chronology of Shakespeare's writings, and such suspicion have they thrown upon MS. evidence in general
.
After New Facts, New Particulars and Further Particulars respecting Shakespeare had appeared and passed muster, Collier produced (1852) the famous Perkins Folio, a copy of the second folio (1632), so called from a name written on the title-page
.
On this See also: book were numerous MS. emendations of Shakespeare said by Collier to be from the See also: hand of " an old corrector." He published these corrections as Notes and Emendations to the Text of Shakespeare (1852), and boldly incorporated them in his edition (1853) of Shakespeare
.
Their authenticity was disputed by S
.
W . See also: Singer in The Text of Shakespeare Vindicated (1853) and by E
.
A
.
Brae in Literary See also: Cookery (18J5) on See also: internal evidence; and when in 1859 the folio was submitted by its owner, the duke of Devonshire, to experts at the See also: British Museum, the emendations were incontestably proved to be forgeries of See also: modern date
.
Collier was exposed by Mr See also: Nicholas See also: Hamilton in his Inquiry (1860)
.
The point whether he was deceiver or
deceived was
See also: left undecided, but the falsifications of which he was unquestionably guilty among the See also: MSS. at See also: Dulwich See also: College have left little doubt respecting it
.
He had produced the See also: Memoirs of See also: Edward See also: Alleyn for the Shakespeare Society in 1841
.
He followed up this volume with the Alleyn Papers (1843) and the See also: Diary of P
.
See also: Henslowe (1845)
.
He forged the name of Shakespeare in a genuine letter at Dulwich, and the See also: spurious entries in Alleyn's Diary were proved to be by Collier's hand when the sale of his library in 1884 gave access to a transcript he had made of the Diary with interlineations corresponding with the Dulwich forgeries
.
No statement of his can be accepted without verification, and no See also: manuscript he has handled without careful examination, but he did much useful work
.
He compiled a valuable See also: Bibliographical and Critical Account of the Rarest Books in the English Language (1865); he reprinted a See also: great number of early English tracts of extreme rarity, and rendered See also: good service to the numerous antiquarian See also: societies with which he was connected, especially in the See also: editions he produced for the See also: Camden Society and the Percy Society
.
His Old See also: Man's Diary (1871-1872) is an interesting record, though even here the taint of fabrication is not absent
.
Unfortunately what he did amiss is more striking to the See also: imagination than what he did aright, and he will be chiefly remembered by it
.
He died at See also: Maiden-See also: head, where he had long resided, on the 17th of See also: September 1883
.
For an account of the discussion raised by Collier's emendations see C.M
.
Ingleby., See also: Complete View of the Shakespeare Controversy (1861)
.
|
|
|
[back] JEREMY COLLIER (1650-1726) |
[next] COLLIN |
There are two views on John Payne Collier. The opinion argued by Arthur and Janet Freeman in their two volume study "John Payne Collier Scholarship & Forgery in the Nineteenth Century" (Yale 2004)argues that he was a forger. It is surprisingly warm towards their subject whi they have studied in depth for some twenty years. Arthur Freeman is the author of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biographies entry on Collier - which is very much briefer than the long two volume book - although the Freemans book is readable and clearly argued. The other view presented in "Fortune & Men's Eyes - The Career of John Payne Collier" (OUP 1982)by Dewey Ganzel finds Collier not guilty and points at other s who basically framed him. The Freeman's are unfair to Ganzel throughout their book and deal with most of his points in footnotes. There is a website from the Marlowe Society which reviews the Freeman book and suggests it lacks scientific weight. There are comparisons of Collier's handwriting which do appear to indicate he was not a forger. I should say that John Payne Collier is my gt gt grandfather but I consider the case against him not proven.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.
Links to articles and home page are encouraged.