Neither the Oxford translation, Edwards's, nor Buckley's, renders [Greek: oligoston] "_very_ brief," agreeably to the admonition of the old scholiast to the contrary. The word "practise" objected to is, I submit, derived from [Greek: prassô], to act, through [Greek: pragma], business, and [Greek: praxis], practice, and is therefore the most appropriate English word, although the word "does" will furnish Sophocles' meaning nearly as well. I shall, however, be most happy to submit to correction by any classical scholar. T. J. BUCKTON. Lichfield. _Party-Similes of the Seventeenth Century_ (Vol. viii., p. 485.).--I must beg of you to contradict the loose statement of JARLTZBERG at p. 486. of this Volume, "as to the object of the Church of England in _separating from_ Rome." Now, the Church of England did never _separate herself_ from _any_ Christian Church; the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England is to be found in her Book of Common Prayer. Popes Paul IV. and Pius IV. offered to confirm this book, if Queen Elizabeth would acknowledge the Pope's supremacy; and Roman Catholics in these realms habitually conformed to the worship of the Church of England for the first _twelve years_ of Queen Elizabeth's reign, after which time they were prevented from doing so by the bull of Pius V. (dated Feb. 23, 1569), which excommunicated that sovereign. So Romanists are the separatists, and not Anglicans. THOMAS COLLIS. _Judges styled Reverend_ (Vol. viii., pp. 158. 276. 351.).--Sir Anthony Fitzherbert was certainly not chief justice, yet in _A Letter to a Convocation Man_ I find him so styled: "I must admit that it is said in the second part of Rolle's _Abridgment_, that the Archbishop of Canterbury {632} was prohibited to hold such assemblies by Fitzherbert, Chief Justice, because he had not the King's licence; but he adds that the archbishop would not obey it, and he quotes Speed for it. I shall not consult that lame historian for a law-point, and it seems strange that Rolle should cite him."--_L. C. M._, p. 38. I have not lately had an opportunity of looking into either Rolle's _Abridgment of Cases_, or Speed's _History of Great Britain_, but I am not able to discover to what event in any of Henry VIII.'s convocations allusion is here made. I am therefore led to think that Fitzherbert must be a misprint, and that we should read in the above passage "Fitz-Peter," and that the following is the circumstance, in King John's reign, which is referred to by the author of the _Letter_: "This year (1200), Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, held a National Synod at Westminster, notwithstanding the prohibition of Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, Earl of Essex, and Chief Justiciary of England."--Collier's _Ecclesiastical History_, vol. i. folio, p. 410. I shall be glad if any of your readers can throw farther light on the passage. W. FRASER. Tor-Mohun.