(Continued from Vol. ii., p. 493.)

(31.) P. H. F. (Vol. iii., pp. 24, 25.) has described a 12mo., or rather an 8vo., copy of Latin Psalter in his possession, and he wishes to know whether Montanus had any connexion with one of the translations therein exhibited. The title-page of your correspondent's volume will tell him precisely what the book contains. He had better not rely too much upon MS. remarks in any of his treasures; and when a bibliographical question is being investigated, let CyclopÆdias by all means not be disturbed from their shelves. Would it not be truly marvellous if a volume, printed by Robert Stephens in 1556, could in that year have presented, by prolepsis, to its precocious owner a version which Bened. Arias Montanus did not execute until 1571? But P. H. F.'s communication excites another query. He appears to set a special value upon his Psalter because that the verses are in it distinguished by cyphers; but Pagnini's whole Bible, which I spoke of, came thirty years before it, and we have still to go nearly twenty years farther back in search of the earliest example of the employment of Arabic figures to mark the verses in the Book of Psalms. The Quincuplex Psalterium, by Jacques le Fevre, is a most beautiful book, perhaps the finest production of the press of Henry Stephens the elder; and not only are the verses numbered in the copy before me, which is of the improved "secunda emissio" in 1513, but the initial letters of them are in red. At signature A iiij. there is a very handsome woodcut of the letter A., somewhat of a different style, from the larger (not the Ascensian) P., within the periphery of which St. Paul is represented, and which is so well worthy of notice in Le Fevre's edition of the Epistole diui Pauli Apostoli, Paris, 1517. The inquiry toward which I have been travelling is this, When did Henry Stephens first make use of the open Ratdoltian letter on dotted ground? (See Maitland's Lambeth List, p. 328. Dibdin's Typog. Antiq. vol. i., Prel. Disquis., p. xl.)

(32.) Is there extant any collation of the various exemplars of the Alphabetum divini Amoris? And has an incontrovertible opinion been formed as to the paternity of this tract? For the common error of ascribing it to Gerson is entirely inexcusable, as this Parisian chancellor is frequently alleged therein. The third volume of his works, set forth by Du Pin, in 1706, contains this "Treatise of the Elevation of the Soul to God," and the editor has left the blunder uncorrected in his Eccles. Hist. iii. 53. Again, can it be affirmed that the folio impression of Louvain, (Panzer, ix. 243.), in which Gerson's name occurs, was assuredly anterior to the small black-letter and anonymous editions, likewise without dates? Two of the latter (one much older than the other) are of 12mo. size, in 8vo., as is also Bonaventura's Stimulus divini Amoris, printed in 1510 and 1517.

(33.) In what way can we detect the propounder of the Notabilis expositio super canonem misse? His work is of small folio size without mention of place or year; but it certainly proceeded from Nuremberg, and was it not one of the primitiÆ of Creusner?

(34.) Who is designated by the letters "G. N. N. D.," which are put at the head of the Epistle to Zuinglius, De Magistris nostris Lovaniensibus, quot et quales sint? And why has the Vita S. Nicolai, sive StultitiÆ Exemplar, originally attached to this performance, been omitted by Dr. MÜnch in his edition of the EpistolÆ obscurorum Vivorum, aliaque Ævi decimi sexti Monimenta rarissima, Leipzig, 1827? If he had reprinted this very desirable appendix, it would have furnished him with the date "Anno M.D.XX.," which would have prevented him from assigning this satirical composition to the year "1521." (Einl. p. 408.)

(35.) A student can scarcely be considered moderately well versed in ancient ecclesiastical documents who has neither read nor heard of the Somnium Viridarii; and we may wonder at, and pity, the learned Goldast, for having fallen into the extravagant mistake of attributing this Latin translation of the celebrated Dialogue, Le Songe du Verger, to "Philotheus Achillinus, Consiliarius Regius." (Monarch. S. Rom. Imper. i. 58. Hanov. 1612.) The question arises, How was he misled? Was it not through a strange misconception of a sentence in the Silva Nuptialis of Nevizan, to which he refers in his preliminary "Dissertatio de Auctoribus?" This writer, who has been plentifully purified by the Roman Index, had cited the preface of an Italian poem, "Il Viridario," composed by his contemporary, Giovanni Filoteo Achillini; and is it thus that an author of the sixteenth century has got credit for an anonymous achievement of the fourteenth age? Goldastus has hardly been out-Heroded by those who have devised an individual named Viridarius, or "Le Sieur du Vergier." (See Baillet, DÉguisemens des Auteurs, p. 479., and M. De la Monnoye's note, pp. 501-2.)

(36.) Is there not a transpositional misprint in the colophon of the old German Life of S. Dorothea, the so-called patroness of Prussia? For it would seem to be inevitable that we should endeavour to elicit 1492, and not 1512, from the following date: "Den Dingstag nach Gregory als man tzelete, M.CCCC. unde cxii." (Vid. Lilienthal, Histor. B. Doroth. p. 6. Dantisc., 1744.)

(37.):—

"The Original Manuscript of both volumes of this History will be deposited in the Cotton Library, by

"T. Burnett."

Has this declaration been inserted, in the handwriting of Thomas Burnet, on the reverse of the title-page of the second volume, in all large-paper copies (and is it strictly limited to them?) of Bishop Burnet's History of his own Time, Lond., 1734? Compare the printed "Advertisement to the Reader" in the first volume, published in 1724.

(38.) Mr. T. R. Hampson, the author of Medii Ævi Kalendarium, which has, I believe, been commended in "Notes and Queries," informs us, in a precious production which he has lately issued on the Religious Deceptions of the Church of Rome, p. 30., that—

"Dr. Geddes, himself a learned Romanist, has selected many [remarkable errors] in his tract, A Discovery of some Gross Mistakes in the Roman Martyrology."

Only fancy a Romanist, learned or unlearned, having the effrontery to bestow so outrageous an appellation upon such an exploit. Does not the second volume of Miscellaneous Tracts, in which the said treatise may be seen, explicitly admonish us to remember that Michael Geddes, LL.D., was erst a chancellor of the Church of Sarum? "Quid RomÆ faciam?" he upbraidingly asks in one of his title-pages, "mentiri nescio."

R. G.