“I have no authority to alter the practice of the Court.”

Preface to the 1913 edition
1890s, Quintessence Of Ibsenism (1891; 1913)
Context: I have never admitted the right of an elderly author to alter the work of a young author, even when the young author happens to be his former self. In the case of a work which is a mere exhibition of skill in conventional art, there may be some excuse for the delusion that the longer the artist works on it the nearer he will bring it to perfection. Yet even the victims of this delusion must see that there is an age limit to the process, and that though a man of forty-five may improve the workmanship of a man of thirty-five, it does not follow that a man of fifty-five can do the same.
When we come to creative art, to the living word of a man delivering a message to his own time, it is clear that any attempt to alter this later on is simply fraud and forgery. As I read the old Quintessence of Ibsenism I may find things that I see now at a different angle, or correlate with so many things then unnoted by me that they take on a different aspect. But though this may be a reason for writing another book, it is not a reason for altering an existing one.

Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 59 (1947).
Judicial opinions

Wilson v. Rastall (1792), 4 T. R. 757.

Doe et dem. Dacre v. Dacre (1798), 2 Bos. & Pull. 260.

Ex parte Rev. James Bell Cox (1887), L. R. 20 Q. B. D. 19.

Reg. v. Charlesworth (1861), 9 Cox, C. C. 67.

Kearsley, 600
Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919), Johnsoniana

1990s, I Am a Man, a Black Man, an American (1998)

Full Court Reference in Memory of The Late Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah