ce is by "Johannes Jolitus de Ferrarues."
The book is full of curious wood-cuts. This is not the book mentioned in
Masch's _Le Long_ (part ii, p. 229), though that was also printed by the
Gioliti in 1588; as the title of the latter book is "Biblia ad
vetustissima Exemplaria castigata," and the preface is by Hentenius.

7. _Identity of Anonymous Annotators._--Can any of the correspondents of
"NOTES AND QUERIES" point out to a literary Backwoodsman, like myself,
any royal road towards assigning to the proper authors the handwriting
of anonymous annotations in fly-leaves and margins? I have many of
these, which I should be glad to ascertain.

8. _Complutensian Polyglot._--In what review or periodical did there
appear, some time ago, a notice of the supposed discovery (or of
conjectures as to the existence) of the MSS. from which the
"Complutensian Polyglot" was compiled, involving, of course, the
repudiation of the common story of the rocket maker of Alcala? Has any
further light been thrown on this subject?

9. _Blunder in Malone's Shakspeare._--Has any notice been taken of the
following odd blunder in Malone's _Shakspeare_, Dublin ed. 1794?

In vol. ii. p. 138, the editor, speaking of _John_ Shakspeare's will
(the father of William), says "This extraordinary will consisted of
fourteen articles, _but the first leaf being unluckily wanting_, I am
unable to ascertain either its date, or the particular occasion on which
it was written." He then gives a copy of the will, beginning at the
third article, in the middle of a sentence, thus: "... at least
spiritually." Now, in the first vol. p. 154. is a document, professing
to be William Shakspeare's will. But of this the first three paragraphs
belong to John Shakspeare's will, his name being mentioned in each: and
the third concludes with the words "at least spiritually." The fourth
paragraph, to the end, belongs to William Shakspeare's will, as given in
Johnson and Stevens's editions. This is a palpable instance of editorial
carelessness: Mr. Malone had mixed the two documents, mislaid the first
portion of the transcript of William Shakspeare's will, and then
neglected to examine the postscript, or he must have found out his
mistake.

Was this error acknowledged or corrected in any subsequent edition?

JOHN JEBB.

* * * * *

MINOR QUERIES

_Mowbray Coheirs._--Collins in his _Peerage_ (ed. Brydges, 1812), says,
at p. 18., speaking of Tho