n domus accipiet te laeta; neque uxor
Optima, nec dulces occurrent oscula nati
Praeripere, et tacita pectus dulcedine tangent."

ECHO.

* * * * *

Queries.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL QUERIES.

(_Continued from_ Vol. iii., p. 87.)

(39.) Does any one now feel inclined to vindicate for Inchofer, Scioppius,
Bariac, or Contarini, the authorship of the _Monarchia Solipsorum_?
Notwithstanding the testimony of the Venice edition of 1652, as well as the
very abundant evidence of successive witnesses, in favour of the
first-named writer, (whose claim has been recognised so lately as the year
1790, by the _Indice Ultimo_ of Madrid), can there be the smallest doubt
that the veritable inventor of this satire upon the Jesuits was their
former associate, JULES-CLEMENT SCOTTI? For the interpretation of his
pseudonyme, "Lucius Cornelius Europaeus," see Niceron, _Mem._ xxxix. 70-1.

(40.) Mr. Cureton (_Ant. Syr. vers. of Ep. of S. Ignat._ Preface, p. ii.,
Lond. 1845) has asserted that--

"The first Epistles published, bearing the name of St. Ignatius--one to
the Holy Virgin, and two to the Apostle St. John, in Latin,--were
printed in the year 1495. Three years later there appeared an edition
of eleven Epistles, also in Latin, attributed to the same {139} holy
Martyr. But nearly seventy years more elapsed before any edition of
these Epistles in Greek was printed. In 1557, Val. Paceus published
twelve," &c.

Two connected Queries may be founded upon this statement:--(1.) Is not Mr.
Cureton undoubtedly in error with respect to the year 1495? for, if we may
believe Orlandi, Maittaire, Fabricius (_B. G._), and Ceillier, the three
Latin Epistles above named had been set forth previously at Cologne, in
1478. (2.) By what mysterious species of arithmetic can it be demonstrated
that "nearly _seventy_ years" elapsed between 1498 and 1557? The process
must be a somewhat similar one to that by which "A.D. 360" is made
equivalent to "five-and-_twenty_ years after the Council of Nice." (Pref.,
p. xxxiv.) In the former instance "_seventy_" is hardly a literal
translation of Bishop Pearson's "_sexaginta_:" but whether these
miscalculations have been already adverted to, and subsequently amended, or
not, I cannot tell.

(41.) In the same Preface (p. xxiv.) a very strange argument was put
forward, which, as we may learn from the last _Quarterly Review_, p. 79.,
where it is satisfactorily