tions:

1. Has the editor of the Doncaster Chronicle seen the reptile?

2. Is the editor quite sure that the creature is a reptile, and not a small fish which in its outward form bears a very close resemblance to a whale? 3. If the editor has not seen this nondescript creature of periodically-voracious-but-easily-satisfied-with-milk-and-water appetite, how does he happen to know that the said reptile exists otherwise than in his own benevolent imagination?

4. Does the editor's severe "reflection" refer only to that portion of "the science and benevolence of the age," which is supposed to reside in the bone-setters, reducers-of-fabulous-dislocations, and wretched vendors-of-poisonous-herbs who infest the northern parts of this island, to the serious prejudice of benefit-clubs and life assurance societies, or has the "case" really been submitted to any qualified-medical-practitioner?

5. Has the parish surgeon seen the poor girl, and what is his report on the case? A LONDONER.

Ghost Stories: Archbishop Cranmer.—

"In all the best attested stories of ghosts and visions, as in that of Brutus, of Archbishop Cranmer, that of Benvenuto Cellini recorded by himself, and the vision Torricelli, the ghost-seers were in a state of cold or of Galileo communicated by him to his favourite pupil chilling damp from without, and of anxiety inwardly." p. 211. - Coleridge, Lectures upon Shakspeare, &c., vol. i.

What is the story of Archbishop Cranmer? K. temp. Hen. VI., occurs the following: John Cobbe. -In Cat. Rot. Patentium, p. 286.,

66

Quod Johannes Cobbe per artem philosophie possit metalla imperfecta de suo proprio genere transferre et ea in aurum vel argentum transubstantiare." And in Rymer (Fod., vol. xi. p. 68.) is the King's permission for the necessary experiments, and he orders "that none shall hinder the said Cobbe therein."

Query 1. What was the result of these experiments (if made); and where can information respecting them, or the said John Cobbe, be found? It appears Cough's Cat. MSS., p. 498.) in the British Muthat the Collecta Chymica (Aysseum was composed by one John Cobbe.

Query 2. Is this author indentic with the philosopher above mentioned? If not, what is the true date of the Collecta Chymice, and what farther is known of these Cobbes ?

T.C.

tion. A Colloquial and Familiar Rhapsody, regarding Prosaic, Poetic, and Dramatic Fiction, by Quintin Queerfellow, Gent. It is of between two and three hundred pages of octosyllabic verse, very spiritedly written; with all the "facility" of that measure, and I think, here, not "fatal," very amusing, and by no means uninstructive; giving, besides general thoughts on the subject, notices of most of our writers, ancient and modern, and their works. Having some thoughts of publishing it, could you, or any of your correspondents, obligingly tell me the author? to whom, in my opinion, it would do no little honour. And it was evidently written for publication, though there is nothing in it to lead to the cause of its not having appeared; most probably the expense.

The MS. was bought at an auction at Puttick's sale-rooms in the spring. M. M.

La Gazette de Londres.- Having lately met with a journal styled La Gazette de Londres, dated "Lundi 3, jusqu'au Jeudi 6 Mai, 1703, V. S. No. 3830.," permit me to ask, through the medium of the "N. & Q.," if it were customary to publish the London Gazette in French at that period? I have never seen but that copy, which I have ascertained to be a translation of the London Gazette of Monday 3rd May to Thursday 6th May, 1703, No. 3911. Both are printed by the government printer, Edward Jones, in the Savoy. It will be remarked that they are differently numbered; and if one might infer anything from that, it would appear that the English copy had published eighty-one numbers antecedently to the French version of it.

Richmond, Surrey.

"Not serve two Masters." —

"Not serve two masters? here's a youth will try it,
Would fain serve God, yet give the devil his due;
Say grace before he doth a deed of villainy,
And give thanks devoutly when 'tis acted."

Φ.

I shall feel truly obliged if you will inform me in what play the above lines may be found?

J. HAZELTON.

Chantry Chapels.-Many of the small churches destroyed at the Reformation as "Chantry Chapels" were situated in hamlets remote from the parish church, and were used for public worship as chapels of ease. Were any chapels so situated, i. e. remote from other churches, ever used exclusively as sepulchral chantries? I have

not met with an instance of the kind.

Where can an account of the destroyed chantries be seen? Is there any collected account of them published? W. H. K.

*Le vieux style.

Catastrophe. Arthur Wilson, the historian, referring (in his Autobiography) to the period when he was secretary to the Earl of Essex, says:

"The winters wee spent in England. Either at Draiton, my lord's grandmother's; Chartley, his own house; or [at] some of his brother, the Earle of Hertford's houses. Our private sports abroad, hunting; at home, chesse or catastrophe. Our publique sports (and sometimes with great charge and expence) were masks or playes. Wherein I was a contriver both of words and matter. For as long as the good old Countesse of Leicester lived (the grandmother to theise nisht with such, then harmless, recreations." noble families) her hospitable entertainment was garPeck, Desiderata Curiosa, lib. xii. No. v. chap. vi. sect. 2. Can any of your correspondents elucidate the term catastrophe in the above passage? Cambridge.

C. II. COOPER.

[Dr. Henry Compton, who died on July 7th, 1713.] Peterman.

John Aubrey, in one of his MSS., says of Kington Langley, near Chippenham :

"Here was a chapel dedicated to St. Peter. The Revel is still kept (1670) the Sunday after St. Peter's day it is one of the eminentest Feastes in these partes. Old John Wastefield told me that he had been Peterman in the beginning of Her Majesty's Reign."

It is probable from the above that the Peterman was a sort of Master of the Ceremonies at the Revel. But is there any other instance of the use of this word, and what is the accurate history of it? J. E. J.

[Phillips and Bailey explain Peter-men as "those who formerly used unlawful engines and arts in catching fish in the river Thames." See also Nares' Glossary. Petermen, in the slang dialect, are those who follow coaches and waggons to cut off packages. It appears, however, to have another meaning in the extract from Aubrey.]

Official Costume of the Judges. - Is there any work from which I can obtain information respecting the history of the official costume of the judges

of England, especially of the coif, now so much diminished from its original size? J. H.

[For notices of the coif, consult Du Cange, v. Cufa: Spelman, v. Birretum album, Coifa: Strutt, 237. See also the article Coir in Ency. Metropol., vol. xvii. p. 2., which states that much curious matter respecting the degree of the coif will be found in a work by the late Serjeant Wynne, entitled Observations touching the This Dignity of the Degree of Serjeant-at-Law, 1765. work, however, is seldom to be met with, as only a few copies of it were printed for private circulation.]

1771."

I must confess that I read this description with great surprise. I knew, or believed, from Junius's private letters to Woodfall, that the first authorised and acknowledged edition, "the author's edition" as Junius calls it, was not published in Feb. 1772 (see Private Letters, Nos. 53. 55. 56.); and I happened to know that the following advertisement appeared in the Public Advertiser of March 2, 1772:

"The publication of the original and complete edition of Junius's Letters (printed by H. S. Woodfall, printer of this paper), with a Dedication, Preface, and Notes, by the Author, will be tomorrow at noon, price half a guinea, in two volumes, sewed."

A reference to the copy in the London Library, soon cleared up the mystery. It is all a mistake. The edition was not published by Woodfall at all, but by Wheble, whose name appears in the titlepage. It is not therefore the "first genuine edition," but one of the many spurious or pirated editions. It is not even what perhaps I may be allowed to call "a genuine spurious" edition, but a manufactured copy made up of many editions. Of this

the proof is simple and obvious. In the engraved title-page, the work professes to have been "printed by John Wheble, 1771:" but the volumes contain the letter to Mansfield, not published until Jan. 21, 1772; the Dedication, not published, as I have shown, until March 3, 1772; and they conclude with a letter professedly written by and signed Junius, addressed to Lord Apsley, and dated Feb. 1775!

In my opinion, the first volume was a separate publication, issued, as professed in the title-page, in 1771, to which, after March, 1772, the Dedication was added. The second volume was a distinct publication in 1772. It must have been printed after March, 1772, as it contains notes which first appeared in "the author's edition." The letter of Feb. 1775 is a mystery which I must leave others to explain. I first met with it in an edition by Wheble, published in 1775.

I could add numberless other proofs that these volumes are a mere manufacture; but enough, I think, has been said to satisfy the most sceptical.

Having thus shown that the description in the Catalogue of No. 11945 is a mistake, I may as well add, though it is of less importance, that the account of No. 11944 is equally erroneous. The edition referred to is certainly not the "first spurious edition," but, as I believe, the very last that preceded the publication of the only genuine edition, that of 1772. As to what is meant by "Woodfall's last edition," the description is too vague to justify comment; for editions have been printed by H. S. Woodfall, George Woodfall, and the present Mr. Henry Woodfall. Neither is it correct to say that it contains many letters not included, &c. in Woodfall's last edition; for it does not contain a single letter by Junius-except the dozen lines on the Monody, which, being merely temporary in their character, Junius himself struck out-that is not to be found in every edition published by a Woodfall, and in every edition of Junius Letters. It contains, indeed, two letters by Draper, which had no business there, and no way concerned Junius; and an impudent forgery, professing to be a letter from the King in reply to Junius.

My attention having been thus drawn to the subject, I will hereafter, with your permission, say a few words and ask a few questions respecting these early piratical editions, the editions which preceded "the author's" of 1772. This will be the more readily excused, considering how little information we have on the subject; and that, as I believe, there is not one of these editions of this British classic, as Junius is called, to be found in our great national library, the British Museum.

L. J.

In the other two copies this part of the crossline of the f is not so visible to the naked eye, but when magnified is distinctly seen to have been bent and broken off by an accident at press.

I feel it incumbent upon me to let MR. COLLIER know that there are variations in the copies of the second folio as well as in the first; corrections evidently made while the book was at press; but the printer certainly outdoes the negligence of him who put forth the first folio.

If MR. COLLIER will turn to Love's Labour's Lost, p. 143. col. 2. line 38., he will find a passage which, in the copies W and H in my possession, is thus given:

"If this austere unsociable life,

Change not you offer made in heate of blood:

If frosts, and fasts, hard lodging, and thine weeds Nip not the gaudy blossomes of your Love." Which in copy S is properly corrected by the printer thus:

"If this austere insociable life,

Change not your offer made in heate of blood: If frosts, and fasts, hard lodging and thin weedes Nip not the gaudy blossomes of your Love." Again, in Much Ado about Nothing, p. 119. col. 1. line 10., copies W and S have "righthly," copy corrects" rightly;" and in the same column, line 10 from bottom, W and S have " It thank," H corrects "I thank."

H

The pagination of the second folio is very confused and incorrect; the mistakes are too numerous to mention, but in one instance I find it corrected. In copy S, Love's Labour's Lost, the page which should be 123 is 132; this is remedied in the other two copies, which have it rightly 132.

There are probably many other instances of variation which a closer examination would develope. MR. COLLIER is doubtless aware of the lines repeated in pp. 171. and 196., and of the numerous other sphalmata which disfigure this volume.

It is singular that I should, just at this moment, have met with a copy of the second folio, which, like MR. COLLIER's, has been carefully corrected throughout, and it may not be unsatisfactory to him to know that the passage in Coriolanus,

"You Heard of Byles and Plagues," has not escaped the MS. corrector, who has deleted you, and reads,

"A Heard of Byles and Plagues."

and the word being printed as it is with a capital letter, raises a doubt whether you Herd could possibly have been a mistake for unheard. The speech, interrupted and broken by passion, as it now stands seems to me more satisfactory.

But in these matters how difficult it is to propose any change which shall carry universal assent! I thought, with many others, the substitution of Bisson Multitude for Bosom Multiplied a happy emendation, yet we find that one strenuous dissentient voice is raised against it:

"Non equidem invideo; miror magis," The majority on this occasion may be in the wrong, for I heard a defeated candidate at the late election declare that the minority were generally right! S. W. SINGER.

Mickleham, Aug. 18. 1852.

The following are the readings in a copy of the folio edition of Shakspeare, 1632, in my possession. The first is Measure for Measure, Act III. Sc. 1.: in my copy the reading is,

66

Friend hast thou none.

For thine own bowels which do call thee, fire
The meere effusion of thy proper loynes,
Do curse the gout," &c.

The second passage is thus printed in my copy, Richard II., Act I. Sc. 3.:

"The flye flow hours shall not determinate

The datelesse limit of thy deer exile: " You will observe the word is printed "flye" with the final e, and the word dear is printed "deer." Mine is a very clean, well-printed copy, and the type remarkably distinct and clear.

It may be proper, however, to state, that although I have always considered my folio to be the edition of 1632, having purchased it as such about twenty years ago, when it had that date lettered on the back, yet it has not the original and genuine title-page, but instead thereof one beautifully executed with a pen :

MR. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S

COMEDIES,
HISTORIES, &

TRAGEDIES,

[Here is inserted the Portrait by Drœshout.]

LONDON

Printed by Isaac Iaggard, and Ed. Blount.

I once had an opportunity of comparing it, rather hastily, with one which professed to be the third edition, and I was struck with their exact resemblance in many particulars.

Perhaps MR. COLLIER may be able to determine whether my copy be indeed the edition of 1632, or favour me with some certain criteria for settling the point. J.T. A.