When reflecting on my various pen-and-ink skirmishes, I have sometimes
half-resolved to _avoid controversy_. The resolution would have been
unwise; for silence, on many occasions, would be a dereliction of
those duties which we owe to ourselves and the public.
The halcyon days, so much desired, may be far distant! I have
to comment, elsewhere, on certain parts of the _Report_ of the
commissioners on the British Museum--which I hope to do firmly, yet
respectfully; and on the evidence of Mr. Panizzi--in which task I must
not disappoint his just expectations. I have also to propose a query
on the _blunder of Malone_--to which I give precedence, as it relates
to Shakspeare.
The query is--have I "mistaken the whole affair"? A few short
paragraphs may enable others to decide.
1. The question at issue arose, I presume to say, out of the
_statement of Mr. Jebb_. I never quoted the Irish edition. If _C._
can prove that Malone superintended it, he may fairly tax me with a
violation of my new canon of criticism--not otherwise. What says Mr.
James Boswell on that point? I must borrow his precise words: "The
only edition for which Mr. Malone can be considered as responsible
[is] his own in 1790." [_Plays and poems of W.S._ 1821, i. xxxiii.]
2. I am said to have "repeated what _C._ had already stated."--I
consulted the _Shakspere_ of Malone, and verified my recollections,
when the query of "Mr. JEBB" appeared--but forbore to notice its
misconceptions. Besides, one _C._, after an interval of two months,
merely _asserted_ that it was not a blunder of Malone; the other _C._
furnished, off-hand, his proofs and references.
3. To argue fairly, we must use the same words in the same sense.
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.