I think it may be permitted to Querists, who may fail in obtaining answers,
to recur to their questions after the lapse of a reasonable time, in order
to awaken attention. I asked a question at page 270., Vol. vi., in which I
was, and still am, much interested. Perhaps MR. COLLIER will do me the
favour to answer it, particularly as his annotated folio is remarkably rich
in "_stage directions_."
Before taking the liberty of putting the question so directly to MR.
COLLIER, I awaited an examination of his recently-published volume of
selected corrections, in which, however, the point upon which I seek
information is not alluded to.
In glancing over that volume, I perceive that MR. COLLIER, in his notes at
the end (p. 508.), does "N. & Q." the honour to refer to it, by alluding to
an emendation "proposed by MR. CORNISH" ("N. & Q.," Vol. vi., p. 312.).
When that emendation appeared I recognised it at once as having been
proposed by Warburton and applauded by Dr. Johnson. I did not, however,
then think it of sufficient importance to trouble the editor of "N. & Q.,"
by correcting a claim which, although apparent, might not perhaps be
intentional. {179}
But now, since the ownership (_quantum valeat_) has deceived even MR.
COLLIER, and is endorsed by him, it is time to notice it.