when he broke his bow in shooting at the worthless Samuel Ireland; and
he committed an {404} 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.