It is true, however, as R.S. Mackenzie says in his _Life of Scott_, that Scott "had not only meditated, but partly executed an edition of Shakespeare." The work was suggested by Constable in 1822, was begun in 1823 or 1824, and three volumes of the proposed ten were printed by the time of Constable's financial crash in the beginning of 1826. The project was sometime afterwards abandoned, and the printed sheets, which apparently were not bound up, disappeared from view. The first volume was to be a life of Shakspere by Scott, and this was probably not begun at all. Of the commentary in the other volumes, Scott was to have the oversight but Lockhart was to do most of the work. It was not designed that the critical apparatus should to any great degree represent original ideas furnished by Lockhart or Scott, but the book was to be "a sensible Shakespeare, in which the useful and readable notes should be condensed and separated from the trash." (See the discussion of the matter in letters between Scott and his publisher given in the third volume of _Constables Correspondence_. See also Lang's _Life of Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 409, and Vol. II, p. 13, and Mackenzie's _Life of Scott_, pp. 475-6.) The Boston Public Library contains three volumes which are thought to be a unique copy of so much of the Scott-Lockhart Shakspere as was printed. (See below, the Bibliography of books edited by Scott.) Scott's notes on Beaumont and Fletcher, which he had wished in 1804 to offer to Gifford, were actually used by Weber in his _Beaumont and Fletcher_, published about 1810, an edition which was characterized by Scott as "too carelessly done to be reputable." (_Lockhart_, Vol. IV, p. 472.)] [Footnote 137: He seems to have connected heroic plays too closely with "the romances of Calprenede and Scuderi." See his introduction to _The Indian Emperor_, Dryden, Vol. II, pp. 317-20; also Vol. I, p. 56, and Vol. VI, p. 125. On his opinion in regard to the relation between novels and plays see below, pp. 75-6.] [Footnote 138: See his comment on Corneille's _Oedipe_, _Dryden_, Vol. VI, p. 125 and Mr. Saintsbury's note.] [Footnote 139: _Lockhart_, Vol. III, p. 446.] [Footnote 140: Hutchinson's _Letters of Scott_, p. 224.] [Footnote 141: That Scott admired Sackville greatly is evident from more than one comment. Of _Ferrex and Porrex_ he says, "In Sackville's part of the play, which comprehends the two last acts, there is some poetry worthy of the author of the sublime Induction to the Mirror of Magistrates." (_Dryden_, Vol. II, p. 135.) Elsewhere Scott calls Sackville "a beautiful poet." (_Fragmenta Regalia_, p. 277. _Secret History of the Court of James I._, Vol. I, p. 278, note.)] [Footnote 142: _Dryden_, Vol. II, p. 136.] [Footnote 143: _Lockhart_, Vol. I, p. 229. See also Vol. III, p. 223.] [Footnote 144: _Ibid._, Vol. V, p. 322.]