ous and important work should be
republished? If a reprint of it were to be undertaken, I would direct
attention to a copy in my possession of "The Third and Last Part," Lond.
1689, which has many alterations marked in MS. for a new edition, and which
exhibits the autograph of Henry Ware.

(47.) Was COHAUSEN the composer of "Clericus Deperrucatus; sive, in
fictitiis Clericorum Comis moderni seculi ostensa et explosa Vanitas: Cum
Figuris: Autore ANNOEO RHISENNO VECCHIO, Doctore Romano-Catholico," printed
at Amsterdam, and inscribed to Pope Benedict XIII.? One of the
well-finished copperplates, page 12., represents "_Monsieur l'Abbe prenant
du Tabac_."

(48.) Where can a copy of the earliest edition of the _Testamentum XII.
Patriarcharum_ be found? for if one had been easily obtainable, Grabe,
Cave, Oudin, and Wharton (_Ang. Sac._ ii. 345.) would not have treated the
third impression as the first; and let it be noted by the way that "Clerico
_Elichero_" in Wharton must be a mistake for "Clerico _Nicolao_." Moreover,
how did the excellent Fabricius (_Bibl. med. et inf. Latin._, and also
_Cod. Pseudepig. V. T._, i. 758.) happen to connect Menradus Moltherus with
the _editio princeps_ of 1483? It is certain that this writer's letter to
Secerius, accompanying a transcript of Bishop Grossetete's version, which
immediately came forth at Haguenau, was concluded "postridie Non. Januar.
M.D.XXXII."

(49.) (1.) Who was the bibliopolist with whom originated the pernicious
scheme of adapting newly printed title-pages to books which had had a
previous existence? Sometimes the deception may be discerned even at a
glance: for example, without the loss of many seconds, and by the aspect of
a single letter, (the long s,) we can perceive the falsehood of the
imprint, "Parisiis, apud Paul Mellier, 1842," together with "S.-Clodoaldi,
e typographeo Belin-Mandar," grafted upon tome i. {184} of the Benedictine
edition of S. Gregory Nazianzen's works, which had been actually issued in
1778. Very frequently, however, the comparison of professedly different
impressions requires, before they can be safely pronounced to be identical,
the protracted scrutiny of a practised eye. An inattentive observer could
not be conscious that the works of Sir James Ware, translated and improved
by Harris, and apparently the progeny of the year 1764, (the only edition,
and that but a spurious one, recorded in Watt's _Bibliotheca Britannica_,)
have been skilfully