"sans chiffres et reclames, en longues lignes de 27 lignes sur
les pages entieres." The full stop employed is a sort of twofold,
recumbent, circumflex or caret; and the most eminent watermark in the paper
is a Unicorn, bearing a much more suitable antelopian weapon than is that
awkwardly horizontal horn prefixed by Dr. Dibdin to the Oryx in profile
which he has depicted in plate vi. appertaining to his life of Caxton:
_Typographical Antiquities_, vol. i.

(44.) Wherein do the ordinary _Hymni et Sequentiae_ differ from those
according to the use of Sarum? Whose is the oldest _Expositio_ commonly
attached to both? and respecting it did Badius, in 1502, accomplish much
beyond a revision and an amendment of the style? Was not Pynson, in 1497,
the printer of the folio edition of the Hymns and Sequences entered in Mr.
Dickinson's valuable _List of English Service-Books_, p. 8.; or is there
inaccuracy in the succeeding line? Lastly, was the titular woodcut in
Julian Notary's impression, A.D. 1504 (Dibdin, ii. 580.), derived from the
decoration of the _Hymnarius_, and the _Textus Sequentiarum cum optimo
commento_, set forth at Delft by Christian Snellaert, in 1496? From the
first page of the latter we receive the following accession to our
philological knowledge:

"Diabolus dicitur a _dia_, quod est duo, et _bolos_ morsus; quasi
dupliciter mordens; quia laedit hominem in corpore et anima."

(45.) (1.) In what edition of the Salisbury Missal did the amusing errors
in the "Ordo Sponsalium" first occur; and how long were they continued? I
allude to the husband's obligation, "to haue and to holde fro thys day
_wafor beter_ for wurs," &c., and to the wife's prudential promise, "to
haue et to holde _for thys day_." (2.) Are there any vellum leaves in any
copy in England of the folio impression very beautifully printed _en rouge
et noir_ "in alma Parisiorum academia," die x. Kal. April, 1510?

(46.) On the 11th of last month (Jan.) somebody advertised in "NOTES AND
QUERIES" for _Foxes and Firebrands_. In these days of trouble and rebuke,
when (if we may judge from a recent article savouring of Neal's second
volume) it seems to be expected that English gentlemen will, in a Magazine
that bears their name, be pleased with a rechauffe of democratic obloquy
upon the character of the great reformer of their church, and will look
with favour upon _Canterburies Doome_, would it not be desirable that
Robert Ware's (and Nalson's) curi