A new _blunder_ of Mr. Malone.--I love the memory of Edmond Malone, albeit he sometimes committed blunders. He committed a pitiable blunder 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_.
_Compendyous Olde Treatyse._--"F.M." (No. 18. p. 277.) will find this tract reprinted (with the exception of the preface and verses) in Foxe's _Acts and Monuments_; a portion once peculiar to the first edition of 1563, p. 452., but now appearing in the reprint of 1843, vol. iv. p. 671-76., which may be of some service in the absence of the original tract.
_Hordys_ (No. 5. p. 157.).--I have waited till now in hopes of seeing an answer from some more competent pen than my own to the Query as to the meaning of the word "_hordys_," by your correspondent "J.G.;" but having been disappointed, I venture a suggestion which occurred to me immediately on reading it, viz. that "_hordys_" might be some possible or impossible derivation from _hordeum_, and applied "irreverently" to the consecrated host, as though it were no better than a common barley-cake.