The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 20, 1864.

ui(JRNI fURE, CARPETS, BEDDING, and
FLOORCLOTEL CARRIAGE-FREE to any house in
the kingdom, regardless of amount or distance. First. class
goods at second-class prices. Terms peculiarly liberal to
Clergymen and Gentlemen. An immense stock to select
from, displayed in Showrcoms occupying an acre of ground.
Every article warranted.
CLERGYMEN and GENTLEMEN ABOUT TO FUR-
NISH are respectfully informed that Messrs. Cohbett and
are publishing an entirely New Edition of their un-
equalled HOUSE FURNISHING GUIDE, illustrated by4lo
admirable engravings of every description of Furniture and
Bedsteads, with prices attached. A copy sent gulls and
post-free on application. This costly work also contains
complete estimates for furnishing on the following revised
scale : "

A Six-roomed Parsonage £74 3 0
An Eight-roomed ditto
A Ten-roomed ditto
A Twelve-roomed ditto

Together with a Cries List of purified Bedding, aad a mass
of valuable infbrmationto all requiring"househ )Icl furniture,
carpets, or bedding. References kindly permitted to Clergy-
men and gentlemen in or near Great Malvern. Southampton,
Chichester, Bury, Ely, Preston, Grimsby, Ryde, Plymouth,
Wells, Oxford, Brighton, Gainsboroufh, Margate. Kidder-
minster, Wellington, Croydon. Cambridge, Staines, Dorking.,
St. Alban's, Worcester, Ipswich, Peterborough, St. David's,
Wrexham, and above 500 other places in all parts of Great
Britain.
COB BETT and CO., General House Furnishers, Deptford-
bridge, London, S.E,

TLANT I C and GREAT WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.
NEW YORK SECTION.

Notice is hereby given, that the Sum set apart for the re-
demption of ponds under the operation of the Sinking Fund
has been applied to the PIIRCLEASE of the undermentioned
BONDS of the NEW YORK SECTION of the said Corn.
PanY, :

Dols.
Bonds, Nos. 1,102, I,lo3—Two Bonds of 501 do's each... 1,000
Bonds, Nos. 155, 156, 57, 158, 159, 491, 515, 638, 754—
Nine Bonds of 1,000 dole. each

10,000
And that the Bonds, together with the Half-yearly Coupons
or Interest Warrants, from July Ist, 1864, to July Ist, 1879,
both inclusive, attached to each of such Bonds respectively,
have been this day cancelled by the undersigned, Mr.Willfam
-Efrain, of Lo7Rloll;lQetarfPublie.
W. GRAIN, Notary Public.
SAMUEL GURNEY,
JOHN P. K ENNAR D,l Trustees.
CHARLES MOZ L EY,
Atlantic and Great Western Railway Offices,
2, Old Broad-street, London, Jan. 15,11164.

THE CONSOLIDATED DISCOUNT
COMPANY (Limited),
No. 4, ABCIIURCH-LANE.
Capital £1,000,000.

DIRECTORS.
George Walter Constable, Esq. (Messrs. Constable and
Wykes), Mincing-lane.
George Denny, Esq. (Messrs. George Dena/ and Co.), Great
St. Helen's.
William Little, Esq., Director of the Cape Town Railway.
Wm. M'Arthur, Esq. (of the firm of Wm. and Alexander
APArthur, Australian Merchants), 46, Moorgate-street.
F. J. Sargood, Esq. (Messrs. Sargood, King, and Sargood),
London and Melbourne.
Thomas Shepherd Richardson, Esq., Director of the Buenos
Ayres and River Plate Bank.
James Thompson, Esq. (Messrs. Ls Gros Thompson and Co.),
Gutter-lane.
*Hugh Fraser Sandeman, Esq.
*Richard Manners Sanderson, Esq. Messrs. Sandeman & Co.
*Samuel Baker, Esq.
* Committee of Management.
BANKERS.
The London and Westminster Bulk.
SOLICITORS.
Messrs. Sole, Turners, and Hardwick.
The business of this Company being in active operation, the
Directors are prepared to Discount approved Mercantile Bills
and to make advances upon neaotiab le Securities.
Money received on deposit, at call and short notice, at the
current market rates, and for longer periods upon terms to be
specially agreed upon.

MR. REARDEN, LAND ESTATE. and
HOUSE AGENT, SURVEYOR and VALUER, 19
and 92, PICCADILLY, near Cambridge Douse, opposite the
Green-park, Established 23 Years, respectfully invites the
particulars of Landed Estates, Farms, and House Property
for Sale, to be Let, or wanted to Rent or Purchase, for which
no charge is made unless a treaty is concluded, and then
only his usual rates of charge, particulars of which will be
given on application. In all cases of his Letting Farms Mr.
Reardon charges tne Tenant only, and not the Landlord.
Particulars of Property for Sale and to be Let will. be given
personally, or forwarded free of charge. N.B.—Several Town
and Country Residences, Landed Properties, and Farms
wanted to Rent and Purchase immediatay.

SHAKESPEAREAN MONUME N TS.

(From the Times.)

Under this heading we propose to make a few remarks on
two distinct though allied subjects—on the monuments to
Shakespeare which various persons are proposing to build
in this the 300th year since he was born, and on what
equally characterises the year, certain mostrematkable edi-
tions of those works which, " making us marble" with asto-
nishment, Milton has described as the poet's best monu-
ment. It is impossible to think of any monument to Shake-
speare without at the same time turning by way of contrast
to the monument which Shakespeare has himself built—a
memorial to all generations—set up not in say one place,
but found in every country throughout the world and known
to almost every tongue. Especially do we revert to the
latter kind of memorial when we call to mind what our
public monuments generally are. Very few are the monu-
ments of stone in which it is possible to excite the public
enthusiasm. We have all in turn been pestered to join
committees to build monuments. Most men that we know
would gladly join a committee to put down moauments and
to destroy the majority of our graven and our molten images.
A society for the suppression of monuments, or at least for
a thorough weeding and hoeing of them, would by no means
be the least valuable of public institutions.
I. It is taken for granted that in this 300th year since he
was born something must be done in honourof Shakespeare.
But why ? And what is the mystical value of 300 ? These
centenaries are an abomination in the eyes of most sen-
sible men. We had first the Handel Centenary,and
that was so successful because of the musical display
which it was possible to produce at the Crystal Palace
that it seems to have set people crazy. We had then in
quick succession a glorification of Burns, the tercentenary
of the Scottish Reformation, the bicentenary of English
Nonconformity, 4141401.,3170 are askedto-celebrate the
tercentenary of Shakespeare's birth. We have little sym-
pathy with these displays. They do not become us ; they
are remarkable for froth and emptiness; they generally
lead to a mighty gush of spurious sentiment and screeching
oratory; and they serve but the purposes of the smallest
parasites and busybodies, who from a study of the working
of committees have discovered that they are a grand modern
invention, like the solar microscope, for magnifying ani-
malcules. Animalcules get up a great committee by certain
well understood arts, and forthwith they look as big as the
committee with all its big names. The little creatures are
not without sentiment, and they base their committees on a
superfine sentiment, which in the case of the centenaries is
called hero worship, though in reality it is little better than
a vain superstition. Now, hating these centenary displays
very heartily, we allow that if an exception is to be made in
favour of any, it might be in favour of one that does honour
to Shakespeare, the greatest of all Englishmen. He is wor-
shipped among us even to idolatry, and we can look with
kindliness on almost any decent absurdity by which our
people propose to do homage to his name. Bat then, if any
such extravagance is to gain our sympathy, it is essential
that it should be decent, and that there should be an ap•
pearance of unanimity in it. We shrink from the selfish
intrigues of petty cabals and from the inglorious squabbles
of a committee which, proposing to direct the national taste
in certain important matters, begins its work by several
shocking exhibitions of bad taste.

In honour of Shakespeare there are two committees at
work—the one in Stratford, the other in London. Both
claim to be regarded as national ; both declare that they are
powerfully supported ; and yet both cannot succeed. There
may be in the public mind enough of sympathy for one ;
there is not enough for two. One of the two must either
be extinguished altogether or become auxiliary to the other.
See what is wanted. Each of the committees proposes as
the principal object of its scheme to build a monument. We
do not like the idea of a monument at all. There are
monuments enough. Above all, we stare .t the suggestion
that the foundation of the monument is to be laid on the
23d of April. In three months the money is to be collected,
the site chosen, the artist appointed, the design drawn, and
the first stone laid. It must be a wonderful committee that
will do all this. And we are to have two magnificent
monuments, worthy of the nation, worthy of Shakespeare.
Where are they to come from ? It would be a task of no
ordinary difficulty to got one; two aro impossible. We
warn our literary friends not to be over sanguine. They
may deem themselves lucky if they get money enough for
one good monument, and the question is, shall this monu-
ment be at Stratford or in London. Oar sympathy, in so
far as we have any sympathy with the movement, goes to
Stratford, both as a matter of necessity and from a sense of

justice.
The necessity lies herein that London stands for itself
almost alone. The provincial towns are supporting Strat-

ford, and will Continue to support it. Against the metro
polls the ory of contraliaation has lien raised. Man.
chester, Birmingham, and, if we mistake not, Liverpool
have all declared for Stratford ; and this is but a sign of
what the provinces intend. They, and not only they, but
all Europe and all America, when theygive to Shakespeare
a local habitation, think of him not in connection with Lon-
don, but in connection with Stratford, where he was born,
where he was educated, where he marrbcl and had children,
where his family seem always to have lived even when he
himself was in London, where he visited them from year to
year, where as he grew in wealth he bought house and
lands, where he retired in the Niness of his strength to
enjoy his days, where he died and where he now lies buried.
He came to London to push his fortune and to make his re-
putation; but he left it soon; there was a prospect of long
days before him in his native town, sad he died there in hie
prime, one year younger than Mr. Tiackeray, Stratford,
then, is the locality with which Saakespeare's name is
chiefly associated, We of the metrololis are bound to re-
member this, and must not be selfish. The country towns
have often assisted London,and it mild be a graceful thing
for London now to assist a small country town—Shake-
speare's town. All things conspire to%his end. For not only
if
raanLondonr
support of the provinces ; it is divided
g
take part in the feuds which dis-
ccalled the National Shakespeare
atietwsttah n
att
itself.d e
isdegree
actedr eleelegantlydifferently,vte ne
cannot
in
ip would it fail to obtain in any
Committee of London; but there is no doubt that this com-
mittee has been badly managed, that its executive has
not been wisely chosen, and that it has lost, if it ever re-
amed, the public eonfidence, To this day the committee
of management is unknown to the public. It is true that
in various circulars which we have all seen the committee
iasnd
repute described. as
But mades P ofemere
400:held the other day to decide upon a report, not a fifth
part of the grand list attended ; those who did attend were
at daggers drawn; the acting nonarnitte3 could not get their
report passed; they were not allowed even to withdraw it;
up
ar
40 0
names. Who are the
Persons, some of high station
work-
ing committee? At a meeting of the large committee of
and they had to submit to the igetom.sy
t of its rejection by
vote. After a vote of this kind, equivalent to a vote of cen-
sure, the acting committee, whoever they are, ought to re-
consider their' position and their objects. There is nothing
left for them but either to abandon their original project, or
to constitute themselves into a London committee, auxiliary
to the one at Stratford. In point of I fact, a number of the
names in their general committee, each as those of Lord
Carlisle, Lord Houghton, and Mr. Tennyson have already
appeared on the Stratford list, and to-day it is announced
that such men as Mr. 'loin Taylor, lklr. Theodore Martin,
Mr. Shirley Brooks refuse to have anything more to do with
the London committee. Their example is sure to be fol-
lowed ; the London committee seem doomed to failure, and
should be warned in time. In Whatever is done for the
honour of Shakespeare unanimity is required, and our
counsels are for peace and unanimity. We
speak with per-
fect impartiality, for we must repeat that the scheme of a
monument finds no favour in our eyes, from
whomsoever it

comes.
11.
lVe ret to
inMilton's
in
the d
hearts of his monument, where
his
Shakespeare,
countrymen, lies
iu such pomp " that Kings for such a tomb would wish to
die." Our best thoughts about a monument will be a care
for Shakespeare's works, and various schemes have been
veenrshrieal of
suggested to make manifest this care. Some suggest the
endowment of a theatre for the performance of Shakespeare's
plays ; others propose the establishment of a Chair or Chairs
at our Universities for the intelligent interpretation of
Shakespeare; a third party suggest the distribution of his
works either gratuitously or at some very low price ; a
fourth advise the preparation of Some splendid and unparal-
leled edition. The first of these schemes, involving the
endowment of a Shakespearian theatre, has been proposed
by Mr. Tom Taylor, Mr. Theodore Martin, and Mr. Shir-
ley Brooks, and looks the best ; it is, however, unneces -ary
to pronounce an opinion on any of them, because they are
not fairly before the public. But we may bestow a few
words of praise upon one or two private attempts to show
care for Shakespeare's works. This year is remarkable for
the appearance of two first-rate editions of Shakespeare,
which if they are continued as they have been begun, will
have a standard value.*
Of these works the most curious is the reproduction by
photo-lithography of the first folio edition of Shakespeare's
plays. An instalment of the reproduction under Mr.
Howard Staunton's superintendence has now been issued,
and with it we are bound to notice the reduced reprint of
Mr. Booth. The first edition of Shakespeare's works is still
the most important and authoritative. That it is often erro-
neous we all know, but most of us would agree with IS:Y.
Dye° in thinking " that an exact reprint of the old text,
with its multifarious errors, forms a more valuable contri-
bution to literature than a semi-corrected text, which,

Shakespeare: The First Folio of 1623, reproduced by
photo-lighography, under the supervision of Howard Staun
tun. London, Day and Son.
Shakespeare : _A Reprint of his Collected Works as Put
Forth in 1823, Part 11, containing the Histories. London,
L. Booth.

The Works of William Shakespeare. The text revised
by the Rev. Alexander Dye°. In 8 volo. Vol, 1, London,
Chapman and Hall.

purged here and there of the grossest blunders,
continues still, almost in every page, to offend against sense
and metre." How nearly the established texts approach to
the original, and how much that original, as a whole, is
superior in authority to the received versions, is proved by
the demands that have been made for a reproduction—be it
facsimile or reprint—of the first folio. To meet the demand
Mr. Booth undertook a reduced reprint, of which the first
part, containing the Comedies, was published two years
ago; while the second part, containing the Histories-, made
its appearance a few weeks back. To that work we can
Ave the greatest praise. It is supposed to be the most ac-
curate reprint which ever has been made, and there has
evidently been such labour end love bestowed upon it as
reflect the highest credit on Mr. Booth and his associates.
The work, too, is wonderfully cheap; being of a reduced
size it is very handy; and for ordinary purposes it is suffi-
cient. Still, the art of photography can surpass it, and the
first specimen of their photo-lithographic facsimile which
Messrs. Day and Son have just turned out, under the care
of Mr. Howard Staunton, will be regarded by Shakespearean
scholars with unqualified satisfaction. It is not the original
—that is all which can be said against it; but it is, we
believe, as near the original as it is possible for any fac-
simile to be. The first folio was printed with an old, bat-
tered, and rather dirty type. Here the nick of an fis
gone, which makes it look like the old form of s; there an
is so broken that it is indistinguishable from c ; some-
times a letter is so clogged with dirt that it is difficult to
make it out; often the type is out of gear, and the spaces
are capricious. Mr. Booth's reprint gives a fair idea of
these caprices ; he had a type specially cut for the pur-
pose. But, being a new, clean-cut type, it is scarcely able
to compete with photo-lithography in reproducing all the
vagaries of form which appear in a much-went and blurred
character. We have been at the pains to compare both
Mr. Booth's and Mr. Staunton's work with the original,
and are astonished at the minute accuracy of both—bute„ef,
course in all the extremest minutice the photographic copy
is pre-eminent. It must not be supposed in every case,
however, that because a difference may be found between
Mr. Booth's reprint and Mr. Staunton's facsimile that
therefore one is wrong and the other right. Both may be
right. There are differences between different copies of
the first folio, for the work evidently underwent revision
and correction as it passed through the press. Mr. Staun-
ton follows mainly the celebrated Ellesmere copy from the
library of Bridgewater-house, in some respects the finest
copy in the world. But turn to the 18th,page of the fac•
simile, and we shall find in the first column, " These are
not natural evens," and in the second column, " Who how
now Stephan ?"—both characteristic errors of the Elles-
mere folio. In the copy followed by Mr. Booth the phrases
are given properly—" These ;are net natural events," and
" Why how Ow Stephan P" Both of the reproductions
are right, and we g: vs- them both a welcome. They scarcely
otter in competition. The reprint is
interefere with each ots1:
cheap and portable—the a;csimile is more expensive and
less handy, but in so far as we' have seen it is a miracle
of accuracy that will rejoice the hearts of all
true Shakespeareans. As rumours have gone abroad
that the appearance of such a facsinaile by means
of photo-lithography would be an
it is pleasant now to see the best cora tradic-
tion of such a report in the actual appearance of the waak.
We have not examined every page, but those we have scru-
tinised yield convincing proof that the process is a trust-
worthy one. And if any infinitesimal errors should be dis-
covered by other eyes, it should be remembered that this
first part is the most difficult of all to copy, because the
earlier pages of the Ellesmere volumes are in a less satis-
factory condition than the body of the work, The printing,
for example, on one side of a page shows, through age, on
the other side; and the photographer has peculiar difficul-
ties to encounter in getting rid of this appearance. The
portrait of Shakespeare by Droeshout on the titlepage of
the Ellesmere folio is a wonderfully fine example of the
famous engraving, and in reproducing its delicate shades
Mr. Staunton's process has been less successful than in
copying the caprices of typography. This, however, was
to have been expected, and rough as the copy is, it is, we
believe, as near an approach to a facsimile as at present it
is possible to obtain of any fine artistic we. rk. The fac-
simile of these 64 pages cannot but surprise any one who
looks into it; and what a treasure it is may te estimated
from the fact that a copy of the original folio has sold for
£250.
Concurrently with Mr. Staunton another Shakspearean
scholar comes with a remarkable edition. It is Mr. Dyce,
the chief living authority in this kind of scholarship. His
work is announced as a second edition, but in reality it is
quite new. In his former edition of Shakespeare he ad-
hered slavishly to the text of the copies whenever by any
possibility a meaning could be twisted out of it, in this re-
spect following most of the recent editors. But the Cam-
bridge editors- have carried slavishness to such an ex-
treme that he has been startled into common sense, and
abjures their superstition. The Cambridge edition of
Shakespeare has been highly praised, not for its text, which
shows a great lack of judgment, but for the collation which
accompanies it. Now, however, we shall have to give it
the praise of having given rise indirectly to the best text
of Shakespeare which has yet appeared. Mr. Dyce has
expres-ed a hope that in ceasing to be a timid editor he
has not become a rash one. There is so much of slavish-
ness it Shakespearean criticism that possibly he will not
escape from this imputation, but he shall not hear it from
us. Perhaps an example will best illustrate the sort of
charges to which he will be exposed. In the first scene of
the Tempest, G jnzalo, on board ship, says, according to the
first folio, "Now would I give a thousand furlongs of sea
for an acre of barren ground—Long heath, brown furze,
anything. The wills above be done I but I would fain die
a dry death." The vast majority of editions follow this
reading, because a' sense can be wrung out of it. Sir
Thomas Hanmer proposed an emendation—" Now would
I give a thousand furlongs of sea for an acre
of barren ground—ling, heath, broom, furze, any-
thing ;" and to support this suggestion there is in
Harrison's Description of Britain, prefixed to Heflin-
shed's Chronicles, a work which it it is known that Shake-
speare used, a passage where "Broom, heath, furze, brakes,
whins, ling" are mentioned as characteristics of barren
ground. Most persons would accept this quotation as con-
clusive, even if they were not quite satisfied beforehand that
Sir Thomas Hanmees conjecture restored the sentence to
its proper balance. Baa Shakespearean editors are a stiff-
necked generation, and are no soon convinced of error. They
showed some hankering after new reading, but could
never summon courage to adopt it, Mr. Dyce himself did
not adopt it in his last edition. He is nosy BO disgusted with
the inanities of timid editing that, in effect, says boldly,
"This will never do. Editing is of no use if it cannot cor-
rect obvious mistakes. The folio pure and simp:o is far
better than a semi-corrected folio." So be accepts Nan-
mer's emendation, and we make bold to say he is right.
Although Mr. Dyce is the most learned of Shakespeare's
editors, and though he is the chief authority on most ques-
tions of verbal criticism connected with our old poets, the
respect which we pay him is not unqualified, In the first
place, he wants originality of conception. He seldom
originates, however he may adopt, an emendation. In this
respect he is far behind Mr. Staunton, who as a verbal critic
is the most original of Shakespeare's recent editors. Still
more is he behind the late Mr. Sidney Walker, to whose
critical notes he is largely indebted. In the next place, he
is rather captions in his style, and snaps at other critics
in such a small way that he fails to inspire everybody with
confidence in a judgment which seems so apt to cavil.
He cavils at innocent though, perhaps, vague expres-
sions, and we maintain that he does himself injustice.
Lastly. iii a number of instances, he errs in his critical
judgment. Thus, for example, every one knows the cele-
brated speech of Prospero on the insubstantial nature of all
earthly things, which ends with the phrase "leave not a
rack behind." Mr. Dyce insists that it should be "wreck,"
and put this into his text. The reason is that though there
are examples in our old writers of "the rack," as applied to
the clouds, he cannot find an instance in which " a rack"
is used in the same sense. This is scarcely cogent enough
to justify the change, So, again, with the Cambridge
editors ho persists is not seeing tho chronological value
which attaches to " it" as a possessive case. As the pos-
sessive of " it" we have in Shakespeare various forms—it,
its, his. In our day the second of these forms has banished
the others ; in Shakespeare's time it was but coming into
use. Mr. Dyce thinks that in this respect we ought to
modernize Shakespeare, and banish from his pages a recog-
nised grammatical form of the time because it does not suit
modern ears. There is no room for argument here. We
can only say that scholars will not thank him for obliterat-
ing from the page what is one of the most curious land-
marks of the language. If we find in Shakespeare such a
line as, "The innocent milk in it most innocent mouth,"
this, as part of the grammar of the time, is as much entitled
to preservation as if we had found in the same line the mo-
dern "its," Once more Mr. Dyco follows the Cambridge
es-litors (theoretically, however, not really) in dealing with
anotiier grammatical peculiarity which we find in Shake-
speare. A noun plural with a verb singular is of fre-
quent occurrence in Shakespeare. How is an editor to
deal with such a construction ? The Cambridge editors de-
cree that when this form of construction proceeds from
the lips of any low fellow it may be allowed to remain ; if
it comes from a Prince or any of the higher personages it
Should be corrected, because it will not do to let Princes
speak grammar which offends a modern ear. We laughed
at r his lC • ' anon of the Cambridge editors as worthy of Jenkins.
• amazement Mr. Dyco says in his preface that the
To out
rule of Jerkins is right; only he takes care not to follow it
Tn another respect, also, he dissents from the
in his text. 1.
Cambridge editorei. He has no mercy on their crude ideas
ersification and he follows a much
as to Shakespeare's N.
Walker. Mr. Walker, however,
safer guide, Mr. Sidney
ws—we ;ire all apt to go to
was rather extreme in his vt. ~g
our opinions in note-
extremes when we are merely jottr_,
t the caution which
books. This very able man never leart4,