In vol. ii. p. 138, the editor, speaking of John Shakspeare's will (the father of William), says "This extraordinary will consisted of fourteen articles, but the first leaf being unluckily wanting, I am unable to ascertain either its date, or the particular occasion on which it was written." He then gives a copy of the will, beginning at the third article, in the middle of a sentence, thus: "... at least spiritually." Now, in the first vol. p. 154. is a document, professing to be William Shakspeare's will. But of this the first three paragraphs belong to John Shakspeare's will, his name being mentioned in each: and the third concludes with the words "at least spiritually." The fourth paragraph, to the end, belongs to William Shakspeare's will, as given in Johnson and Stevens's editions. This is a palpable instance of editorial carelessness: Mr. Malone had mixed the two documents, mislaid the first portion of the transcript of William Shakspeare's will, and then neglected to examine the postscript, or he must have found out his mistake.
Was this error acknowledged or corrected in any subsequent edition?
JOHN JEBB.
MINOR QUERIES
Mowbray Coheirs.—Collins in his Peerage (ed. Brydges, 1812), says, at p. 18., speaking of Thomas Duke of Norfolk:—
"In 15 Henry VII, he made partition with Maurice, surviving brother of William Marquiss of Berkeley (who died issueless), of the lands that came to them by inheritance, by right of their descent, from the coheirs of Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk;"
and quotes, as his authority, Commun. de T. Pasch, 15 Henry VII., Rot. 1.
The roll of the whole year referred to has been examined, without finding any notice of the subject.
Should any of your readers have met with the statement elsewhere, it may happen that there is some error in Collins's reference to his authority; and a clue to the right roll, or any other notice of the division of this great inheritance, will be acceptable.