extraordinary and scarcest of all this class of publications," p. 116., while all of the class are known to be by no means of common occurrence. Clement (Bibliothèque Curieuse, art. "Brasichellensis," v. ccvii.) designates the Roman edition as "extrêmement rare;" and (note 48., p. 211 a.) says of the other, "cette édition de Bergame est encore plus rare que celle de Rome."

Now Clement informs us that "on a copié l'édition de Rome de 1607 à Ratisbonne, vers l'an 1723, sur de beau papier;" and Mr. Mendham says that this was done by "Serpilius, a priest of Ratisbon, in 1723," and that the copy so closely resembled the original "as to admit of its being represented as the same." Accordingly, Clement says that it was furtively sold as the genuine work, until the announcement of an intended reprint by Hessel, at Altorff, in 1742, induced the owner of the remainder of the Ratisbon counterfeit to avow his fraud. Then, Mr. Mendham says, it "appeared with a new title-page, as a second edition." Of that circumstance Clement makes no mention.

"The original and counterfeit editions of this peculiar work are sufficiently alike to deceive any person who should not examine them in literal juxtaposition; but upon such examination the deception is easily apparent," says Mr. Mendham, p. 131. The natural inference from this is, that he has so examined them.

His mention of the Bodleian "copy of the original edition" may warrant the belief that he has made use of it. The fact that Dr. James, "chief keeper" of the Bodleian, used and cited the Roman edition in his Treatise of the Corruptions of Scripture, Councils and Fathers, &c. in 1612, may further warrant the belief that the copy in that library is an indubitable original, placed where it is before the counterfeit was gotten up.

If these inferences are correct, I have, what I much desire, a criterion by which to distinguish the counterfeit from the genuine Roman edition. Yet I hardly dare to trust it, because it involves a charge of carelessness against Clement, who is not often justly liable to such reproach.

He says, "J'ai eu le bonheur d'acquérir l'édition originale de Rome." He therefore either copied the title of what he thought a genuine edition, or carelessly substituted that of the counterfeit.

Now I have a copy of what purports to be the Roman edition, the title of which, agreeing exactly neither with Clement nor with the title given by Mr. Mendham (p. 116.), yet coincides with the latter in one curious particular, which seems to identify it with Mr. Mendham's genuine original, while its rare disagreements from Clement's distinguish it from that. Mr. Mendham's transcript of the title runs:

"Indicis Librorum Expurgandorum in Studiosorum gratiam confecti. Tomus Primus. In quo Quinquaginta Auctorum Libri præ cæteris desiderati emendantur, Per Fr. Jo. Mariam Brasichellen Sacri Palatii Apostolici Magistrum in unum corpus redactus, et publicæ commoditati æditus. Romæ, ex Typographia R. Cam. Apost. MDCVII. Superiorum Permissu."

In this there are two observable peculiarities: 1. The full-stop after "confecti," breaking the grammatical construction; 2. The omission of such a stop (as a sign of contraction) after the portion of a word, "Brasichellen," from which the final syllable "sem" has been dropped, as appears in the archetype, for want of room.

That Mr. Mendham faithfully copied this last peculiarity is shown by his own singular misconception of the word, which he has taken to be complete, and on p. 130. writes of "Brasichellen, or Guanzellus;" a mistake into which he has been led by Jugler, whom he is there reporting; Jugler, as quoted in the note, seeming to have been led into it by Zobelius.

The peculiarity which has thus led Mr. Mendham, and before him Zobelius and Jugler, into error, does not appear in Clement's title. It runs:

"Indicis Librorum Expurgandorum in Studiosorum gratiam confecti, Tomus Primus. In quo Quinquaginta Auctorum Libri præ cæteris desiderati emendantur. Per Fr. Jo. Mariam Brasichellen. Sacri Palatii Apostolici Magistrum in unum corpus redactus, et publicæ commoditati æditus. Romæ, ex Typographia R. Cam. Apost. M.DC.VII. Superiorum Permissu."

Both the peculiarities pointed out in Mendham's copy are wanting in this; and a third difference is, that where Mendham, after "emendantur," has a comma, this has a full-stop. All these differences are corrections, and therefore more likely to be found in a reprint, than the reverse.

My copy agrees with Mendham in the two peculiarities first remarked; but with Clement in the last. It has, beside, another peculiarity which neither has retained, but resembling those of Mendham's copy. After the word "auctorum" there is a full-stop, breaking the grammatical construction just as that after "confecti" does.

These circumstances lead me to think my copy one of the genuine edition, and to suppose that Mendham's was of the same; in which case, Clement must have either carelessly given the title of the counterfeit, while he had the genuine at hand (as he says); or, still more carelessly, miscopied the genuine; or deceived himself with the belief that he had the genuine, while he had only a counterfeit.

It is singular that there is room for a similar doubt about the Bergomi edition of this work. Of that, too, I have what purports to be a copy; but am led by Clement's description of the Altorff edition to have misgivings that it may have been made as studiously a counterfeit of the Bergomi edition, as its predecessor of Ratisbon had been of that of Rome. In all the particulars of which Clement says, "Ceux qui auront l'édition de Bergame, pourront juger sur ce détail, si la copie d'Altorff la représente exactement ou non," my copy does agree with his description; and it may be that some of the Altorff copies bear a false title, with Bergomi as the imprint.

The genuineness of this book is of no ordinary interest. It is one of the most damaging witnesses against Rome, to convict her of conscious fraud. How much its evidence is dreaded, is proved by the industrious suppression that has made it of so great rarity.

May I not hope, therefore, that some of your readers who have access to the Bodleian will inform me through your columns—

1. Whether any copy there, purporting to be of the Roman edition, can be identified as having been in the library before 1723?

2. Whether the title of such copy (if there be any) agree with Mr. Mendham's, or Clement's, or mine?

3. Whether there is in that library (or elsewhere in England) an undoubted copy of the Bergomi edition?

A copy of the titles of the Ratisbon and Altorff editions would also be desirable; and (if they could be identified) any distinguishing note of the Ratisbon counterfeit, e.g. the signature marks of its preliminary sheet.

U. U.

Baltimore, U. S. A.

Minor Queries.

313. "The Don," a Poem.

—This is an old work illustrative of the local antiquities, ancient families, castles, &c., on the banks of the Don, in Aberdeenshire. It is said to have been written during the usurpation of Oliver Cromwell by a Mr. Forbes of Brux, in the immediate neighbourhood. One of the ablest of our local antiquaries states, that he has never been able to satisfy himself of the existence of any edition of that poem earlier than that of the quarto one of 1742, which seems to have been reprinted from an edition of the year 1655; but is so thoroughly redolent of the spirit of a later age, that it is not possible to believe it to have been written in the seventeenth century. All subsequent editions (and they have been numerous) have reference to an edition of 1655. In 1655, it is said to have been originally written by a Mr. Forbes