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.

C.

Theses.—­Perhaps it may assist your correspondent “M.” (No. 25. p. 401.) to be informed that the University of Goettingen is particularly rich in “Theses” (termed Disputationes et Dissertationes), to which there is a large room entirely devoted in the library of that university; together with the transactions of learned bodies.  A special librarian is attached to this department, which is much consulted.  A Catalogue was begun