_Malone's Blunder_ (No. 25. p. 403.).--"Mr. BOLTON CORNEY," in his
answer on this subject, says very justly, that "before we censure a
writer, we should consult his own edition." He has, however, not
followed this excellent principle in this case, for he has certainly not
looked at the Irish edition of Malone, on which the question arises. He
has repeated what I had already stated (No. 24. p. 386.), that the
mistake was _not_ a blunder of _Malone's_; and he has also pointed out,
what had escaped me, Malone's supplemental note containing the first
_three_ articles of the pretended will of _John_ Shakspeare: but when he
adds that there is "_no fabrication_" and "_no mystery_" in the case,
and that "the blunder of the Irish editor was merely in attempting to
_unite the two fragments_ as published by Malone," it is quite clear
that he has not seen the edition in question, and has, I think, mistaken
the whole affair. The Irish editor did _not_ attempt to unite Malone's
fragments--quite the contrary--he left Malone's first fragment as he
found it; but he took the second fragment, namely, the exordium of the
pretended will of _John_ Shakspeare, and substituted it _bodily_ as the
exordium of the will of _William_ Shakspeare, suppressing altogether the
real exordium of the latter. So that this Irish will begins, "I, _John_
Shakspeare," &c., and ends, "by me, _William_ Shakspeare." I have no
doubt that the will of John Shakspeare is a forgery altogether; but the
taking three paragraphs of it, and substituting them for the two first
paragraphs of _William_ Shakspeare's genuine will, is what I call, and
what no doubt "Mr. BOLTON CORNEY" will think, on this explanation of the
facts, "an audacious fabrication." The best guess I can make as to how,
or with what design, the Irish editor should have perpetrated so
complicated, and yet so manifest a blunder, is this:--Malone printed the
fragment in question at the end of his volume, amongst his "Emendations
and additions," as belonging to "_the will before printed_," meaning the
forged will of _John_ Shakspeare, but that the Irish editor understood
him to mean the genuine will of _William_ Shakspeare; and so thought
that he was only restoring the latter to its integrity: but how he could
have overlooked the difference of names, and the want of continuity in
the meaning of the documents, is still to me utterly incomprehensible.