6. Is the edition of the _Fasciculus Temporum_, set forth at Cologne by
Nicolaus de Schlettstadt in 1474, altogether distinct from that which is
confessedly "omnium prima," and which was issued by Arnoldus Ther Huernen
in the same year? If it be, the copy in the Lambeth library, bearing date
1476, and entered in pp. 1, 2. of Dr. Maitland's very valuable and accurate
_List_, must appertain to the third, not the second, impression. To the
latter this Louvain reprint of 1476 is assigned in the catalogue of the
books of Dr. Kloss (p. 127.), but there is an error in the remark that the
"Tabula" prefixed to the _editio princeps_ is comprised in _eight_ leaves,
for it certainly consists of _nine_.

7. Where was what is probably a copy of the second edition of the _Catena
Aurea_ of Aquinas printed? The folio in question, which consists of 417
unnumbered leaves, is an extremely fine one, and I should say that it is
certainly of German origin. Seemiller (i. 117.) refers it to Esslingen, and
perhaps an acquaintance with its water-marks would afford some assistance
in tracing it. Of these a rose is the most common, and a strigilis may be
seen on folio 61. It would be difficult to persuade the proprietor of this
volume that it is of so modern a date as 1474, the year in which what is
generally called the second impression of this work appeared.

8. How can we best account for the mistake relative to the imaginary
Bologna edition of Ptolemy's _Cosmography_ in 1462, a copy of which was in
the Colbert library? (Leuglet du Fresnoy, _Méth. pour étud. l'Hist._, iii.
8., à Paris, 1735.) That it was published previously to the famous Mentz
Bible of this date is altogether impossible; and was the figure 6 a
misprint for 8? or should we attempt to subvert it into 9? The _editio
princeps_ of the Latin version by Angelus is in Roman letter, and is a very
handsome specimen of Vicenza typography in 1475, when it was set forth "ab