Notes and Queries, Number 71, March 8, 1851 | Page 8

in 1502,
accomplish much beyond a revision and an amendment of the style?
Was not Pynson, in 1497, the printer of the folio edition of the Hymns
and Sequences entered in Mr. Dickinson's valuable List of English
Service-Books, p. 8.; or is there inaccuracy in the succeeding line?
Lastly, was the titular woodcut in Julian Notary's impression, A.D.
1504 (Dibdin, ii. 580.), derived from the decoration of the Hymnarius,
and the Textus Sequentiarum cum optimo commento, set forth at Delft
by Christian Snellaert, in 1496? From the first page of the latter we
receive the following accession to our philological knowledge:
"Diabolus dicitur a dia, quod est duo, et bolos morsus; quasi dupliciter
mordens; quia lædit hominem in corpore et anima."
(45.) (1.) In what edition of the Salisbury Missal did the amusing errors
in the "Ordo Sponsalium" first occur; and how long were they
continued? I allude to the husband's obligation, "to haue and to holde
fro thys day wafor beter for wurs," &c., and to the wife's prudential
promise, "to haue et to holde for thys day." (2.) Are there any vellum
leaves in any copy in England of the folio impression very beautifully
printed en rouge et noir "in alma Parisiorum academia," die x. Kal.
April, 1510?
(46.) On the 11th of last month (Jan.) somebody advertised in "NOTES
AND QUERIES" for Foxes and Firebrands. In these days of trouble
and rebuke, when (if we may judge from a recent article savouring of
Neal's second volume) it seems to be expected that English gentlemen
will, in a Magazine that bears their name, be pleased with a réchauffé
of democratic obloquy upon the character of the great reformer of their
church, and will look with favour upon Canterburies Doome, would it
not be desirable that Robert Ware's (and Nalson's) curious and
important work should be republished? If a reprint of it were to be
undertaken, I would direct attention to a copy in my possession of "The

Third and Last Part," Lond. 1689, which has many alterations marked
in MS. for a new edition, and which exhibits the autograph of Henry
Ware.
(47.) Was COHAUSEN the composer of "Clericus Deperrucatus; sive,
in fictitiis Clericorum Comis moderni seculi ostensa et explosa Vanitas:
Cum Figuris: Autore ANNOEO RHISENNO VECCHIO, Doctore
Romano-Catholico," printed at Amsterdam, and inscribed to Pope
Benedict XIII.? One of the well-finished copperplates, page 12.,
represents "Monsieur l'Abbé prenant du Tabac."
(48.) Where can a copy of the earliest edition of the Testamentum XII.
Patriarcharum be found? for if one had been easily obtainable, Grabe,
Cave, Oudin, and Wharton (Ang. Sac. ii. 345.) would not have treated
the third impression as the first; and let it be noted by the way that
"Clerico Elichero" in Wharton must be a mistake for "Clerico Nicolao."
Moreover, how did the excellent Fabricius (Bibl. med. et inf. Latin., and
also Cod. Pseudepig. V. T., i. 758.) happen to connect Menradus
Moltherus with the editio princeps of 1483? It is certain that this
writer's letter to Secerius, accompanying a transcript of Bishop
Grossetête's version, which immediately came forth at Haguenau, was
concluded "postridie Non. Januar. M.D.XXXII."
(49.) (1.) Who was the bibliopolist with whom originated the
pernicious scheme of adapting newly printed title-pages to books which
had had a previous existence? Sometimes the deception may be
discerned even at a glance: for example, without the loss of many
seconds, and by the aspect of a single letter, (the long s,) we can
perceive the falsehood of the imprint, "Parisiis, apud Paul Mellier,
1842," together with "S.-Clodoaldi, è typographeo Belin-Mandar,"
grafted upon tome i. {184} of the Benedictine edition of S. Gregory
Nazianzen's works, which had been actually issued in 1778. Very
frequently, however, the comparison of professedly different
impressions requires, before they can be safely pronounced to be
identical, the protracted scrutiny of a practised eye. An inattentive
observer could not be conscious that the works of Sir James Ware,
translated and improved by Harris, and apparently the progeny of the

year 1764, (the only edition, and that but a spurious one, recorded in
Watt's Bibliotheca Britannica,) have been skilfully tampered with, and
should be justly restored--the first volume to 1739, the second to 1745.
(2.) We must admit that a bookseller gifted with mature sapience will
very rarely, or never, be such an amateur in expensive methods of
bamboozling, as to prefer having recourse to the title-page expedient, if
he could flatter himself that his purpose would be likely to be effected
simply by doctoring the date; and thus a question springs up, akin to
the former one, How great is the antiquity of this timeserving device?
At this moment, trusting only to memory, I am not able to adduce an
instance of the depravation anterior to the year 1606, when Dr. James's
Bellum