That Mr. Mendham faithfully copied this last peculiarity is shown by his own singular misconception of the word, which he has taken to be complete, and on p. 130. writes of "_Brasichellen_, or _Guanzellus_;" a mistake into which he has been led by Jugler, whom he is there reporting; Jugler, as quoted in the note, seeming to have been led into it by Zobelius. The peculiarity which has thus led Mr. Mendham, and before him Zobelius and Jugler, into error, does not appear in Clement's title. It runs: "Indicis Librorum Expurgandorum in Studiosorum gratiam confecti, Tomus Primus. In quo Quinquaginta Auctorum Libri præ cæteris desiderati emendantur. Per Fr. Jo. Mariam Brasichellen. Sacri Palatii Apostolici Magistrum in unum corpus redactus, et publicæ commoditati æditus. Romæ, ex Typographia R. Cam. Apost. M.DC.VII. Superiorum Permissu." Both the peculiarities pointed out in Mendham's copy are wanting in this; and a third difference is, that where Mendham, after "emendantur," has a comma, this has a full-stop. All these differences are corrections, and therefore more likely to be found in a reprint, than the reverse. My copy agrees with Mendham in the two peculiarities first remarked; but with Clement in the last. It has, beside, another peculiarity which neither has retained, but resembling those of Mendham's copy. After the word "auctorum" there is a full-stop, breaking the grammatical construction just as that after "confecti" does. These circumstances lead me to think my copy one of the genuine edition, and to suppose that Mendham's was of the same; in which case, Clement must have either carelessly given the title of the counterfeit, while he had the genuine at hand (as he says); or, still more carelessly, miscopied the genuine; or deceived himself with the belief that he had the genuine, while he had only a counterfeit. It is singular that there is room for a similar doubt about the Bergomi edition of this work. Of that, too, I have what purports to be a copy; but am led by Clement's description of the Altorff edition to have misgivings that it may have been made as studiously a counterfeit of the Bergomi edition, as its predecessor of Ratisbon had been of that of Rome. In all the particulars of which Clement says, "Ceux qui auront l'édition de Bergame, pourront juger sur ce détail, si la copie d'Altorff la représente exactement ou non," my copy _does_ agree with his description; and it may be that some of the Altorff copies bear a false title, with Bergomi as the imprint. The genuineness of this book is of no ordinary interest. It is one of the most damaging witnesses against Rome, to convict her of conscious fraud. How much its evidence is dreaded, is proved by the industrious suppression that has made it of so great rarity. May I not hope, therefore, that some of your readers who have access to the Bodleian will inform me through your columns--