M. has incidentally asked, "Do _different books_ circulate under the title of _Fasciculus Temporum_?" I should say, strictly speaking, Certainly not. But there is a sense in which the supposition is perfectly true; for we not only meet with the genuine _Fasciculus_ of 1474, by Wernerus Rolevinck de Laer, but have also to encounter the same work as it was interpolated by Heinricus Wirezburg de Vach, and published for the first time in 1481. Ratdolt's edition of 1484, which M. used, does not contain the remarkable substituted passage in which the author was compelled to record the _invention_, instead of the _propagation_, of printing; and it would appear, therefore, that that impression does not belong to the Wirezburgian class. I have been surprised at finding that Pistorius and Struvius have reprinted the sophisticated, and not the authentic, book; and it is curious to see the introduction of an "&c." along with other alterations in the account given of the death of Henry VII. from the reception of a poisoned Host. M. will instantly perceive that we cannot safely trust in a _Fasciculus Temporum_ of, or after, the date 1481; but I can answer for the agreement of the impression of Colon. 1479 with the _editio princeps_. The citations respecting the Gutenberg Bible are not from the _Fasciculus Temporum_, but from _Die Cronica van der hilliger Stadt van Coellen_, A.D. 1499; the testimony of which (or rather of Ulric Zell related therein) as to the origin of printing is very well known through the Latin translation of it supplied by B. de Mallinckrot. (Clement, vii. 221.; Meerman, ii. 105.; Marchand, _Hist. de l'Imp._, ii. 4. 104.; Lambinet, 132.) R. G. THE PENDULUM DEMONSTRATION, ETC. (Vol. iv., pp. 129. 177. 235.) It would have been more courteous in H. C. K. to have requested me to exhibit my authority for the assertion that the pendulum phenomenon had been latterly attributed to differences in the earth's superficial velocity, than to have assumed that explanation as having originated with myself. There is certainly nothing to justify H. C. K. in calling it "A. E. B.'s theory;" on the contrary, my avowed object was to suggest objections to it, and even my approval of it was limited to this, that, providing certain difficulties in it could be removed, it would then become the most reasonable explanation as yet offered of the alleged phenomenon,--the only one, I might have added, that I had the slightest hope of comprehending.