Now _C._ (No. 24. p. 386.) asserts the _Malone had never seen_ the
introductory fragment; and asks, who _forged_ it? He uses the word
_fabrication_ in the sense of forgery.--The facts are produced (No.
25. p. 404.). He is informed that the _audacious fabrication_, which
took place before 1770, was first published by Malone himself,
in 1790--yet he expects me to apply the same terms to the blunder
committed by another editor in 1794.

4. As an answer to my assertion that the Irish editor _attempted to
unite_ the two fragments, _C._ proceeds to prove that he _did not
unite them_. The procedure is rather defective in point of logical
exactness. It proves only what was not denied. Malone refers to the
_will of John Shakspere, found by Joseph Moseley_, with sufficient
clearness; and it is charitable to assume that the Irish editor
intended to observe the instructions of his precursor. He failed, it
seems--but why? It would be useless to go in search of the rationale
of a blunder.

Have I "_mistaken the whole affair_"?--I entreat those readers of
the "NOTES AND QUERIES" who may take up the affirmative side of the
question to point out my errors, whether as to facts or inferences.

BOLTON CORNET.

* * * * *

AUTHORS WHO HAVE PRIVATELY PRINTED THEIR OWN WORKS.

Can any of your readers refer me to any source whence I can obtain
an account of "JOHN PAINTER, B.A. of St. John's College, Oxford?" He