See also:JOHN See also:PAYNE See also:COLLIER (1789–1883)
, 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 See also:Dyer See also: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 (0. Eng. Lima, cf. Icel. timi, Swed. timme, hour, Dan. time; from the root also seen in " tide," properly the time of between the flow and ebb of the sea, cf. O. Eng. getidan, to happen, " even-tide," &c.; it is not directly related to Lat. tempus)
- TIME, MEASUREMENT OF
- TIME, STANDARD
time a reporter for The Times
.
He was summoned before the See also:House of See also:Commons in 1819 for giving an incorrect See also:report of a speech by See also:Joseph See also: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 See also:early English See also:drama
.
After some See also: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 See also:Stage to the Restoration, a badly arranged, but valuable See also:work
.
It obtained for him the See also:post of librarian to the See also:duke of See also:Devonshire, and, subsequently, See also:access to the See also: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 See also: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 See also:long time bewilder the See also:chronology of Shakespeare's writings, and such suspicion have they thrown upon MS. See also:evidence in See also:general
.
After New Facts, New Particulars and Further Particulars respecting Shakespeare had appeared and passed See also:muster, Collier produced (1852) the famous See also:Perkins See also:Folio, a copy of the second folio (1632), so called from a name written on the See also:title-See also: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 See also: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
- HAMILTON (GRAND or ASHUANIPI)
- HAMILTON, ALEXANDER (1757-1804)
- HAMILTON, ANTHONY, or ANTOINE (1646-1720)
- HAMILTON, ELIZABETH (1758–1816)
- HAMILTON, EMMA, LADY (c. 1765-1815)
- HAMILTON, JAMES (1769-1831)
- HAMILTON, JAMES HAMILTON, 1ST DUKE OF (1606-1649)
- HAMILTON, JOHN (c. 1511–1571)
- HAMILTON, MARQUESSES AND DUKES OF
- HAMILTON, PATRICK (1504-1528)
- HAMILTON, ROBERT (1743-1829)
- HAMILTON, SIR WILLIAM
- HAMILTON, SIR WILLIAM (1730-1803)
- HAMILTON, SIR WILLIAM ROWAN (1805-1865)
- HAMILTON, THOMAS (1789-1842)
- HAMILTON, WILLIAM (1704-1754)
- HAMILTON, WILLIAM GERARD (1729-1796)
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 See also:letter at Dulwich, and the See also:spurious entries in Alleyn's Diary were proved to be by Collier's hand when the See also: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 See also:Critical See also:Account of the Rarest Books in the English See also: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 See also:Percy Society
.
His Old See also:Man's Diary (1871-1872) is an interesting See also: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
.
See also:Ingleby., See also:Complete View of the Shakespeare Controversy (1861)
.
End of Article: