fied if these volumes, in their collected form, shall answer the end which I proposed, which was, by interweaving literary anecdote and information with a specific description of rare books, at the same time to amuse the general reader, and assist the purposes of the curious collector. I therefore take my leave, say ing to such,

IT was my first intention to have gone carefully through each preceding volume, and to have introduced such additions as time has discovered, or circumstances suggested, or as the observations of others have communicated; but the volume, with the addition of the Index, which is considered as more essentially necessary, would have been expanded to an undue length. I have therefore contented myself with subjoining such notices as were immediately before me, not entirely without the hope of being called upon still more carefully to re-examine each particular volume,

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

VOL. I,

IN the Table of Contents, p. xxiv. for FisCHETUS lege FICHETUS, for LUFTON 1. LUP

ΤΟΝ.

P. 3. The first edition of Caius de Antiquitate Cantebrigiens. Acad. typis Bynneman, was in duodecimo. I was misled by Herbert, v. 2. p. 968.

P. 7. Mr. Johnes, the elegant translator of Froissart, &c. has a copy of the edition of Dante, which is here described, with an additional large plate, representing Il Gran Diabolo swallowing his victims, and voiding them again by a most extraordinary process.

P. 10. For traits 1. tracts. P. 11, For book 1. edition. P. id. CABBALA DEL CAVALLO, &c.

Mr. Hoblyn's copy of this book was purchased by Dr. Hunter, and a copy which wanted the frontispiece was in the La Velliere collection, No. 4417. This, in its imperfect state, sold for 224 livres, and is pronounced to be the only copy

known

known in Paris, and termed the scarcest of all the works of Brunus Nolanus.

P. 12. The finest copy of the LASCARIS I have ever seen is in the collection of Dr. Charles Burney.

Lord Spencer's copy first belonged to Maittaire, and afterwards to Dr. George, of Eton.

There was a copy in the Pesari collection purchased by Col. Johnes, and this fortunately escaped the conflagrations which in part destroyed the valuable library deposited at Hafod.

P. 13. A copy of the Princeps Editio of Longinus is in the late Bishop of Ely's collection, the whole of which has been purchased since his Lordship's death by the Duke of Devonshire.

Mr. Cracherode's copy was given by him to Earl Spencer, and formerly belonged to Thua

nus.

P. 17. There is a very fine copy of Castell's Lexicon in the Lambeth Library, to which it was presented by Archbishop Sheldon.

P. 22. A good account of all Cartwright's business may be found in Strype's Whitgift.

P. 25. Dr. Askew's copy of Horsley's Britan nia Romana was on large paper.

P. 28. The Epistola Lugubris of Santius has nothing to do with the Valerius Maximus, which is compleat without it.

P. 32. Dr. Taylor left his copy of Walton's Polyglot to the school at Shrewsbury, at which

1

place

place I understand he had received his educa

tion.

The copy of Castell's Lexicon, belonging to Count Hoym, was not upon large paper: it was purchased at Colbert's sale, together with Walton's Polyglott, which was on large paper, for 1050 livres. It does not appear that the Lexicon in the Catalogue of Colbert's Library was on large paper, though the Polyglott is there so distinguished.

These identical books came into the possession of the Duke de la Valliere, and were purchased at his sale for the King's library at Buckingham House, and, what is remarkable, for the same money that Count de Hoym paid for them at the sale of Monsieur Colbert's books. They have the Colbert arms upon them, and are unquestionably the same transferred from this library to that of the Count de Hoym.

P. 37. I am exceedingly concerned that the anecdote related in this page has given umbrage to a Gentleman whose good opinion I must necessarily hold in the highest estimation. I was certainly not at all aware that I was guilty of any impropriety by inserting it, but I promise that Gentleman that it shall be omitted, if this work shall come to a second edition.

At present I may be permitted to propose a Quere, whether Mr. Steevens had never read the account of the King's imprisonment in the