Notes Queries No. 29, Saturday, May 18, 1850 | Page 5

Dr. Horne, in his _Introduction to the Study of the Bible_, in explanation of Acts, xvi. 11, 12. The specimen in my possession is in _lead_, finely struck, and therefore not a _cast_, and in all respects equal in point of sharpness and execution to the silver of the same size and type in the British Museum; and was dug up by a labourer at Chesterton, near Cambridge. How is the metal of which my specimen is composed to be accounted for?
2. A 3 B. coin apparently by the portrait of Tiberius.--Legend defaced: _Rev._ The type known by collectors as the altar of Lyons: _Ex._ (ROM)AE ET AV(G.)
3. A 3 B. of Herennia Estruscilla.--Rev. The usual seated figure of Pudicitia; and the Legend, PVDICITIA AVG.
According to Col. Smyth, Akermann, and other authorities, no third brass of this empress exists; but the specimen before me has been decided as undoubtedly genuine by many competent judges.
4. A 3 B. coin of the Emperor Macrinus, struck in some of the provinces.--_Obv._ A bearded portrait of the emperor: Leg., AVT. K.M.O.C.C. MAKPINOC: _Rev._ An archaic S.C. in a laurel garland, above L and beneath C. I am anxious to know to what locality I may ascribe this coin, as I have not been able to find it described.
E.S.T.
* * * * *
QUERIES PROPOSED, NO. 2.
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.
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 appears to have been a very singular character, and fond of printing (privately) his own lucubrations; to most of which he subscribes himself "The King's Fool." Three of these privately printed tracts are now before me:--1. _The Poor Man's Honest Praises and Thanksgiving_, 1746. 2. _An Oxford Dream, in Two Parts_, 1751. 3. _A Scheme designed