5. Are we to suppose that either carelessness or a love of conjectures was the source of Chevillier's mistake, not corrected by Greswell (Annals of Paris. Typog., p. 6.), that signatures were first introduced, anno 1476, by Zarotus, the printer, at Milan? They may doubtless be seen in the Opus Alexandride Ales super tertium Sententiarum, Venet. 1475, a book which supplies also the most ancient instance I have met with of a "Registrum Chartarum." Signatures, however, had a prior existence; for they appear in the Mammetractus printed at Beron Minster in 1470 (Meerman, ii. 28.; Kloss, p. 192.), but they were omitted in the impression of 1476. Dr. Cotton (Typ. Gaz., p. 66.), Mr. Horne (Introd. to Bibliog., i. 187. 317), and many others, wrongly delay the invention or adoption of them till the year 1472.

6. Is the edition of the Fasciculus Temporum, set forth at Cologne by Nicolaus de Schlettstadt in 1474, altogether distinct from that which is confessedly "omnium prima," and which was issued by Arnoldus Ther Huernen in the same year? If it be, the copy in the Lambeth library, bearing date 1476, and entered in pp. 1, 2. of Dr. Maitland's very valuable and accurate List, must appertain to the third, not the second, impression. To the latter this Louvain reprint of 1476 is assigned in the catalogue of the books of Dr. Kloss (p. 127.), but there is an error in the remark that the "Tabula" prefixed to the editio princeps is comprised in eight leaves, for it certainly consists of nine.

7. Where was what is probably a copy of the second edition of the Catena Aurea of Aquinas printed? The folio in question, which consists of 417 unnumbered leaves, is an extremely fine one, and I should say that it is certainly of German origin. Seemiller (i. 117.) refers it to Esslingen, and perhaps an acquaintance with its water-marks would afford some assistance in tracing it. Of these a rose is the most common, and a strigilis may be seen on folio 61. It would be difficult to persuade the proprietor of this volume that it is of so modern a date as 1474, the year in which what is generally called the second impression of this work appeared.

8. How can we best account for the mistake relative to the imaginary Bologna edition of Ptolemy's Cosmography in 1462, a copy of which was in the Colbert library? (Lenglet du Fresnoy,

9. If it be true, as Dr. Cotton remarks in his excellent Typographical Gazetteer, p. 22., that a press was erected at Augsburg, in the monastery of SS. Ulric and Afra, in the year 1472, and that Anthony Sorg is believed to have been the printer, why should we be induced to assent to the validity of Panzer's supposition that Nider's Formicarius did not make its appearance there until 1480? It would seem to be more than doubtful that Cologne can boast of having produced the first edition, A.D. 147; and it may be reasonably asserted, and an examination of the book will abundantly strengthen the idea, that the earliest impression is that which contains this colophon, in which I would dwell upon the word "editionem" (well known to the initiated): "Explicit quintus ac totus formicarii liber uxta editionem fratris Iohannis Nider," &c., "Impressum Auguste per Anthonium Sorg."

10. In what place and year was Wilhelmi Summa Viciorum first printed? Fabricius and Cave are certainly mistaken when they say Colon. 1479. In the volume, which I maintain to be of greater antiquity, the letters c and t, s and t, are curiously united, and the commencement of it is: "Incipit summa viciorum seu tractatus moral' edita [sic] fratre vilhelmo episcopo lugdunes. ordinsq. fratrû predicator." The description given by Quetif and Echard (i. 132) of the primary impression of Perault's book only makes a bibliomaniac more anxious for information about it: "in Inc. typ. absque loco anno et nomine typographi, sine numeris reclamat, et majusculis."

11. Was Panormitan's Lectura super primo Decretalium indubitably issued at Venice, prior to the 1st of April, 1473? and if so, does it contain in the colophon these lines by Zovenzonius, which I transcribe from a noble copy bearing this date? "Abbatis pars prima notis que fulget ahemis Est vindelini pressa labore mei :

Cuius ego ingenium de vertice palladis ortum
Crediderim, veniam tu mihi spira dabis."

12. Is it not unquestionable that Heroldt's Promptuarium Exemplorum was published at least as early as his Sermones? The type in both works is clearly identical, and the imprint in the latter, at the end of Serm. cxxxvi., vol. ii., is Colon. 1474, an edition unknown to very nearly all bibliographers. For instance, Panzer and Denis commence with that of Rostock, in 1476; Laire

with that of Cologne, 1478; and Maittaire with that of Nuremberg, in 1480. Different statements have been made as to the precise period when this humble-minded writer lived. Altamura (Bibl. Domin., pp. 147. 500.) places him in the year 1400. Quetif and Echard (i. 762.), Fabricius and Mansi (Bibl. Med. et inf. Latin.), prefer 1418, on the unstable ground of a testimony supposed to have proceeded from the author himself; for whatever confusion or depravation may have been introduced into subsequent impressions, the editio princeps, of which I have spoken, does not present to our view the alleged passage, viz., "à Christo autem transacti sunt millequadringenti decem et octo anni," but most plainly, "M.cccc. & liij. anni." (Serm. lxxxv., tom. ii.) same "Discipulus" Oudin (iii. 2654.), and Gerius in the Appendix to Cave (p. 187.), attribute the Speculorum Exemplorum, respecting which I have before proposed a Query; but I am convinced that they have confounded the Speculum with the Promptuarium. The former was first printed at Deventer, A. D. 1481, and the compiler of it enters upon his prologue in the following striking style: Impressoria arte jamdudum longe lateque per orbem diffusa, multiplicatisque libris quarumcunque fere materiarum," &c. He then expresses his surprise at the want of a good collection of Exempla; and why should we determine without

66

To this

evidence that he must have been Heroldus ?

FAIRFAX'S TASSO.

R. G.

In a copy of Fairfax's Godfrey of Bulloigne, ed. 1600 (the first), which I possess, there occurs a very curious variorum reading of the first stanza of the first book. The stanza, as it is given by Mr. Knight in his excellent modern editions, reads thus:

"The sacred armies and the godly knight,
That the great sepulchre of Christ did free,
I sing; much wrought his valour and foresight,
And in that glorious war much suffer'd he;
In vain 'gainst him did hell oppose her might,
In vain the Turks and Morians armed be;

His soldiers wild, to brawls and mutines prest,
Reduced he to peace, so heaven him blest."

By holding up the leaf of my copy to the light, it is easy to see that the stanza stood originally as given above, but a cancel slip printed in precisely the same type as the rest of the book gives the following elegant variation:

"I sing the warre made in the Holy Land,

And the Great Chiefe that Christ's great tombe did free:

Much wrought he with his wit, much with his hand,

Much in that braue atchieument suffred hee:

In vaine doth hell that Man of God withstand, In vaine the worlds great princes armed bee; For heau'n him fauour'd; and he brought againe Vnder one standard all his scatt'red traine." Queries.-1. Does the above variation occur in any or many other copies of the edition of 1600? 2. Which reading is followed in the second old edition? T N.

Demerary, September 11. 1850.

Minor Queries.

Jeremy Taylor's Ductor Dubitantium. — Book I. chap. 2. Rule 8. § 14.

"If he (the judge) see a stone thrown at his brother judge, as happened at Ludlow, not many years since." (The first ed. was published in 1660). Does any other cotemporary writer mention this circumassizes of that time? stance? or is there any published register of the

Ibid. Chap. 2. Rule 3. § 32."The filthy gingran."

Apparently a drug or herb. Can it be identified, or its etymology pointed out?

Ibid. §. 50.

First Earl of Roscommon.-Can you or any of your correspondents put me on any plan by which I may obtain some information on the following subject? James Dillon, first Earl of Roscommon, married Helen, daughter of Sir Christopher Barnwell, by whom he had seven sons and six daughters; their names were Robert, Lucas, Thomas, Christopher, George, John, Patrick. Robert succeeded his father in 1641, and of his descendants and those of Lucas and Patrick I have some accounts; but what I want to know is, who are the descendants of Thomas (particularly), or of any of the other three sons?

Lodge, in his Peerage, very kindly kills all the sons, Patrick included; but it appears that he did not depart this life until he had left issue, from whom the late Earl had his origin. If Lodge is thus wrong in one case, he may be in others, and I have reason to believe that Thomas left a son settled in a place in Ireland called Portlick.

FRANCIS.

St. Cuthbert.-The body of St. Cuthbert, as is well known, had many wanderings before it found a magnificent resting-place at Durham. Now, in an anonymous History of the Cathedral Church of Durham, without date, we have a very particular account of the defacement of the shrine of St.

Cuthbert, in the reign of Henry VIII. The body was found "lying whole, uncorrupt, with his face bare, and his beard as of a fortnight's growth, with

all the vestments about him as he accustomed to say mass withal." The vestments are described as being "fresh, safe, and not consumed." The visitors "commanded him to be carried into the Revestry, till the king's pleasure concerning him was further known; and upon the receipt thereof the prior and monks buried him in the ground under the place where his shrine was exalted." Now, there is a tradition of the Benedictines (of whose monastery the cathedral was part) that on the accession of Elizabeth the monks, who were apprehensive of further violence, removed the body in the night-time from the place where it had been buried to some other part of the building. This spot is known only to three persons, brothers of the order; and it is said that there are three persons who have this knowledge now, as communicated from previous generations.

But a discovery was made in 1827 of the remains of a body in the centre of the spot where the shrine stood, with various relics of a very early period, and it was asserted to be the body of St. Cuthbert. This, however, has not been universally assented to, and Mr. Akerman, in his Archæological Index, has

"The object commonly called St. Cuthbert's Cross" (though the designation has been questioned), "found with human remains and other relics of the AngloSaxon period, in the Cathedral of Durham in 1827.”p. 144.

There does seem considerable discrepancy in the statements of the remains found in 1827 and the body deposited 1541.

I will conclude with asking, Is there any evidence to confirm the tradition of the Benedictines? J. R. N. Vavasour of Haslewood. Bells in Churches.— It is currently reported in Yorkshire that three curious privileges belong to the chief of the ancient Roman Catholic family of Vavasour of Haslewood:

1. That he may ride on horseback into York Minster.

2. That he may specially call his house a castle.

3. That he may toll a bell in his chapel, notwithstanding any law prohibiting the use of bells in places of worship not in union with the Church of England.

Is there any foundation for this report; and what is the real story? Is there still a law against the use of bells as a summons to divine services except in churches? A. G. Alteration of Title-pages.-Among the advertisements in the last Quarterly and Edinburgh Re

views, is one which replies to certain criticisms on a work. One of these criticisms was a stricture upon its title. The author states that the reviewer had a presentation copy, and ought to have inquired into the title under which the book was sold to the public before he animaverted upon the connexion between the title and the work. It seems then that, in this instance, the author furnished the Reviews with a title-page differing from that of the body of his impression, and thinks he has a right to demand that the reviewers should suppose such a circumstance probable enough to make it imperative upon them to inquire what the real title was. Query, Is such a practice common? Can any of your readers produce another instance ?

M.

H.E.

Shunamitis Poema. · - Who was the author of a curious small 8vo. volume of 179 pages of Latin and English poems, commencing with "Shunamitis Poema Stephani Duck Latine redditum?"

The last verse of some commendatory verses prefixed point out the author as the son of some well-known character:

"And sure that is the most distinguish'd fame, Which rises from your own, not father's name. London, 21 April, 1738."

My copy has no title-page: a transcript of it would oblige E. D. Lachrymatories. In many ancient places of sepulture we find long narrow phials which are called lachrymatories, and are supposed to have been receptacles for tears: can you inform me on what authority this supposition rests? J. H. C.