strength.

My next article shall be devoted to advertisements of another class, further illustrating the state of society and the peculiarities of the people at the end of the seventeenth century.

H. M. BEALBY.

North Brixton.

TREATISE OF EQUIVOCATION.

As having originated the inquiry in "NOTES AND QUERIES"[1] respecting this Treatise, under the signature of J. M., I feel great obligation both to the editor of that journal, and the editor of the Treatise itself, for having brought it to light by publication, and added it to the stock of accurate and very important historical information. Indeed, a real vacancy was left for it; and it is a subject of high self-gratulation, that a boon previously, and for a length of time, hidden and unproductive, is now accessible and operative without limit. I have no doubt that all your readers, and the whole reading public, join with me in rejoicing that the editorship of the work has fallen into hands so competent and so successful.

[1] Vol. i., pp. 263. 357.; Vol. ii., pp. 136. 168. 446. 490.

I was, not for ten, but twenty years or more, in quest of the MS. now so happily made public property, and should have fallen upon it much earlier, but for the misleading title under which it appears, where it is really; for it has been found. In the Catalogus Lib. MSS.: Ox. 1697, among the Laudian MSS. appears, p. 62., "968.95. A Treatise against Equivocation, or fraudulent Dissimulation." Against! when no such word is in the original, and the real matter and meaning is for! I had, at some early time, marked the very entry; but presuming that the work had been actually printed (which I believe it was in a very few copies, which have disappeared), naturally enough I did not pursue the search in that direction. Others, I am happy, have, and I am gratified.

The work is very important; for there is not a work more evidently genuine and authentic than this is proved to be by plain historic evidence, both as to the document itself and the facts which it attests. The witness, or witnesses, appearing in it, give their testimony respecting themselves with the most unsuspectable simplicity. They meant not, and have not, misrepresented themselves: they have proclaimed their own doctrine for themselves respecting Equivocation and Mental Reservation—the last of which is really of most importance; and it was most needful to the Roman body at the time, and under their circumstances. Their object, for mere safety, was concealment as to their resorts or residences. They could not exist, as they did, without the assistance and knowledge of many individuals, some of inferior class. Against the incessant inquiries to which they were exposed they had no defence, except the power of disappointing or misleading by ambiguity or deception, which was completely secured by reserved termination in the mind to any uttered declaration. Now, there is in this very Treatise plain admission that all the co-religionists of the endangered party, particularly a lady who is distinctly noticed, were not convinced of the moral rectitude of such a procedure; and it was necessary, or expedient, that their hesitation should be removed. And this seems to be the main object of the present work. How far it has succeeded must depend upon the evidence which is adduced.

We have generally had the doctrine of the Roman body on the subject of the Treatise presented by opponents; here we have it as deliberately stated by themselves. There is a passage rather observable in p. 103., beginning at the bottom and extending to the words "he hath no such meaning to tell them," of which we are not acquainted with a duplicate. But the whole has something of the freshness and interest of novelty.

Macbeth, it is agreed, I believe, was written in 1607, consequently after the Powder Plot, when the doctrine before us was brought forward pointedly against the traitors. Might there not be some reference to the fact in the Second Act, where the porter of the castle, roused by repeated knockings, on the murder, after other exclamations in the manner of the poet, proceeds:

"Here's an Equivocator, that could swear in both the scales, against either scale: who committed treason enough for God's sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven. Oh, come in, Equivocator"?

Mr. Jardine will thank your correspondent for pointing out an error or two which should be corrected in another edition. At p. 44., for "χθο," in the margin, should be printed "sub verbo." The word in the MS. is a contraction to that effect: the capital "V" has a curved stroke across the first line of the "V," followed by "bo." Generally the Dubium, in alphabetic works of the kind referred to, ranks under some alphabetic word, one or more, as it may happen; but in Em. Sà's work the word Dubium comes under the letter D., and this is meant to be expressed. At p. 49. the footnote should be omitted, as the Vulgate, which is followed, calls the 1st of Samuel the 1st of Kings. The first line of p. 56. should have "autem" instead of "antea." I have inspected the MS. carefully, and therefore speak with confidence.

EUPATOR.

NOTES ON VIRGIL.
(Continued from p. 308.)

"Infixit. Inflixit, lectionem quorundam MSS. facile prætulissem, et quod statim præcesserit transfixo, unde evadit inconcinna cognatæ dictionis repetitio, et quod etiam Æn. x. 303.:

"si Sidon. Apoll. v. 197. haud tueretur vulgatam scripturam:

To which criticism of Wakefields's, Forbiger adds: "Præterea etiam acuto scopulo infigendi voc. accommodatius videtur quam infligendi." And Wagner: "acuto scopulo infigi melius."

This interpretation and these criticisms are founded altogether on a false conception of the meaning of the word infigere, which is never to fix on, but always either to fix in, or to fix with, i.e. pierce with. Scopulo infixit acuto, fixed or pinned down or to the ground with a sharp rock; i.e. hurled a sharp-pointed rock on him, so as to nail him to the ground. So (Æn.