to be dealt with more leniently
than do bibliographers, for pitfalls
are before and behind them. It is
impossible for any one man to see all the
books he describes in a general bibliography;
and, in consequence of the necessity
of trusting to second-hand information,
he is often led imperceptibly into gross
error. Watt's _Bibliotheca Britannica_ is a
most useful and valuable work, but, as
may be expected from so comprehensive
a compilation, many mistakes have crept
into it: for instance, under the head of
Philip Beroaldus, we find the following
title of a work: ``A short view of the
Persian Monarchy, published at the end
of Daniel's Works.'' The mystery of the
last part of the title is cleared up when we

find that it should properly be read, ``_and
of Daniel's Weekes_,'' it being a work on
prophecy. The librarian of the old
Marylebone Institution, knowing as little of
Latin as the monk did of Hebrew when
he described a book as having the beginning
where the end should be, catalogued
an edition of sop's Fables as ``sopiarum's
Phdri Fabulorum.''

Two blunders that a bibliographer is
very apt to fall into are the rolling of