&c.! Let us pass over irrelevant matter till we come to

6th. J. B.'s authoritative rule, "that no apparent similarity between words in the Semitic and Asian (read Sanscrit) families can be used to establish a real identity, the two classes of language being radically and fundamentally distinct." Vide mouse, and a hundred more roots, that might quash this rule.

To conclude, I did not introduce the Sanscrit dal into my former note, because, I suppose, an idea passed through my mind that I might offend some "interesting points in Greek manners."

I have only one more remark to make, which is, that the Sanscrit bhra-tre is a compound word like δελ-φυς. I will give the full etymology of this word bhra-tre, to prove that J. B. has done wrong in bringing in a word to militate against his own rule. Persian, bra-dar; Sanscrit, bhra-tre; Gothic, bro-thar; Islandic, bro-dir; German, bru-der; Swedish and Danish, bro-der; Anglo-Saxon, bro-ther. Now, will J. B. prove that the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac בר, bar, a son, is not connected with the Persian and Sanscrit bra and bhra? If he does, I shall doubtless be edified.

T. R. BROWN.

Vicarage, Southwick, near Oundle.

THE ROMAN INDEX EXPURGATORIUS OF 1607.
(Vol. iv., p. 440.)

I am happy in being able to give, I trust, a satisfactory answer to the Query of your American correspondent U. U., respecting the original edition of 1607.

There can be no doubt that the copy in the Bodleian Library is of the genuine edition. It was in the Library certainly before the year 1620, as it appears in the catalogue printed in that year, and still bears the same reference on the shelf as is there given to it, namely, 8vo. I. 32. Theol.; and it was doubtless the copy used by Dr. James, who superintended the forming of that catalogue, and who died only a few months before. The title runs thus: