QUERIES ANSWERED, NO. 7.
A new blunder of Mr. Malone.—I love the memory of Edmond Malone, albeit he sometimes committed blunders. He committed a pitiable blunder when he broke his bow in shooting at the worthless Samuel Ireland; and he committed an irreparable blunder when he whitewashed the monumental effigy of the matchless Shakspere. Of the blunder ascribed to him by a reverend querist (No. 14. p. 213) he was quite innocent.
Before we censure an author or editor, we should consult his own edition. He cannot be answerable for the errors of any other impression. Such, at least, is my notion of critical equity.
I shall now state the plain facts. Malone, in the first instance, printed the spurious declaration of John Shakspear in an imperfect state. (Plays and Poems of W.S., 1790, vol. i. part ii. p. 162.) He was soon afterwards enabled to complete it. (Ibid. vol. i. part ii. p. 330.) Steevens reprinted it entire, and without comment. (Plays of W.S., 1793, vol. ii. p. 300.) Now the editor of the Irish reimpression, who must have omitted to consult the edition of Steevens, merely committed a blunder in attempting to unite the two fragments as first published by Mr. Malone.
There was no audacious fabrication on the occasion—there is no mystery in the case! (No. 24. p. 386.) So, to stop the current of misconception, and economise space on future occasions, I venture to repeat a few words in suggesting as a canon of criticism:—Before we censure an author or editor we should consult his own edition.
BOLTON CORNEY.
REPLIES TO MINOR QUERIES.
Compendyous Olde Treatyse.—"F.M." (No. 18. p. 277.) will find this tract reprinted (with the exception of the preface and verses) in Foxe's Acts and Monuments; a portion once peculiar to the first edition of 1563, p. 452., but now appearing in the reprint of 1843, vol. iv. p. 671-76., which may be of some service in the absence of the original tract.
NOVUS.