Amateurs.

Tickets may be had at the Hospital, 32. Golden Square; of Messrs. Aylott &
Jones, Paternoster Row; Mr. Bailliere, 219. Regent Street; Mr. Headland,
15. Princes Street, Hanover Square; Mr. Leath, Vere Street, Cavendish
Square, and St. Paul's Churchyard; Mr. Walker, Conduit Street; Mr. James
Epps, Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury Square, and Broad Street, City; Mr.
Turner, Piccadilly, Manchester; Mr. Thompson, Liverpool; and at all the
Homoeopathic Chemists and Booksellers.

Single Tickets, 7s. 6d.; Family Tickets to admit Four, 1l. 4s.

* * * * *

{487}

_LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1854._

Notes.

REPRINTS OF EARLY BIBLES.

In 1833 the authorities of the Clarendon Press put forth a quarto reprint,
word for word, page for page, and letter for letter, of the _first_ large
black-letter folio edition of 1611, of the present authorised or Royal
version of the Bible. So accurate was it, that even manifest errors of the
press were retained. It was published that the reader might judge whether
the original standard could still be exactly followed. It was accompanied
by a collation with a _smaller_ black-letter folio of 1613, in preference
to the larger folio of that year, as no two copies (entire) of the latter
could be found, all the sheets of which corresponded precisely:

"Many of these copies contain sheets belonging, as may clearly be
proved, to editions of more recent date; and even those which appear to
be still as they were originally published, are made up partly from the
edition printed at the time, and partly from the remains of earlier
impressions."

Now this is a most interesting subject to all lovers of our dear old
English Bible. It is supposed the translators revised their work for the
1613 edition (after two years); yet the collation with the _small_ folio of
that year, shows little or no improvement, rather the contrary. I possess a
small quarto edition of 1613 (black-letter, by Barker), not mentioned by
our more eminent bibliographers, which, while admitting the better
corrections, adheres to the old 1611 folio, where the _small_ folio of 1613
unnecessarily deviates. It is certainly, I consider, a most valuable
impression. I have lately purchased a magnificent copy of the _great_ folio
of 1613. It is in the original thick oak binding, with huge brass clasps,
corners, and bosses; and appears to have been chained to a reading-desk. In
col