58 
pralia, verbera, lumina, foedera, agmina, crimina, 
sidera. 
Sixth Words of Verses. — Dura, seepe, quedam, 
acerba, prava, multa, dira, nigra, seva. 
PENTAMETER. 
First Words of Verses. — Tetrica, ardua, per- 
fida, improba, sordida, impia, tristia, turpia, noxia. 
Second Words of Verses. —Prestabunt, pree- 
seribunt, concludunt, preedicunt, perficiunt, con- 
summant, conglomerant, significant, procurant. 
Third Words of Verses. —Dura, acta, vina, 
verba, dicta, facta, labra, arma, astra. ( 
Fourth Words of Verses.—Dolosa, pudenda, 
proterva, nefanda, cruenta, superba, molesta, si- 
nistra maligna, 
Fifth Words of Verses. —Nova, aliis, tibi, viris, 
scio, mea, malis, vides, mihi. 
Now, it will be easily perceived, that any six 
of these words in the hexameter, and any five in 
the pentameter series, if taken in their respective 
numerical order, as regards their position in the 
verse, will form a verse correct in prosody, and 
containing a certain modicum of meaning. Who 
devised “this ingenious trick,” I am unable to 
say ; but may presume that it, like other learn- 
edly-laborious trifles of a similar description, 
emanated from the cloisters of the olden time. 
I believe the compiler of a much more important 
work, the Gradus ad Parnassum, is still un-° 
‘known. 
My. calculation, with respect to the number of 
different verses that can be formed from these 
words, differs considerably from that of I. H. A. 
According to Cocker, six series of nine words, 
9x9x9xX9x9x9, will afford 531,441 different 
hexameter verses; and, by the same oft-quoted 
authority, 9X9x9x9xX9, will give 59,049 pen- 
tameter verses. Making in all, 590,490 verses; 
rather more than forty-five times as many as are 
contained in the whole writings of Virgil! The 
classical reader will readily observe some pecu- 
liarities in this system of verse-making, suflici- 
ently obvious to save the time and space required 
for their indication here. 
The Latin verse-making machine, that was ex- 
hibited at the Egyptian Hall in 1845 (the “ What 
Is It?” yeat of exhibition notoriety), was un- 
doubtedly constructed by the aid ef the words 
given above. I fancy that any one, possessing 
but a slight amount of mechanical ingenuity, by 
taking his text from this Note, could readily make 
a similar machine. 
With respect to the tables, which I have already 
shown are constructed from the words, Solomon 
Lowe, “ Schoolmaster at Hammersmith,” in his 
Arithmetic (London, 1749), informs us, that one 
John Peters, in 1677, to give the feat an air of 
mystery, distributed the letters into tables : 
"And to strengthen the paradox, he entitled the piece 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[204 §, Nog, daw. 19.956, 
‘ Artificial Versifying;’ whereby any one of ordinary 
capacity, though he understands not one word of Latin, 
may be taught immediately to make 590,490 hexameter 
and pentameter verses, true Latin, true verse, and good 
sense.” 
I do not recollect having met with John Peters 
in print; probably, if it were worth the trouble, 
Proressor pe Moraan could tell us something 
about him. 
Before I part from Lowe, the subjoined speci- ~ 
men of arithmetical trifling may amuse the reader. 
He tells us that the two following verses: 
“ Lex, rex, grex, res, spes, jus, thus, sal, sol (bona), 
lux, laus.” ° 
“ Mars, mors, sors, fraus, fex, styx, nox, crux, pus 
(mala), vis, lis.” 
without changing the positions of “mala” and 
“ bona,” may be varied 79,833,600 ways: 
“ Which wvould,compose above 249 volumes; each yo- 
lume containing 2000 pages, every page divided into two 
columns, and each column to contain eighty verses; 
which, at a penny the sheet, would amount to 5187. 15s. 
And, supposing them bound for 5s. a volume, the binding 
would cost 62/. 5s.; and the worth of the whole, would 
be 5811.” 
W. Pinxerton. 
Hammersmith. 
WINE FOR EASTER COMMUNION. 
* (1** Si xii. 363.477.) 
Considerable light would be thrown upon the 
question asked by the Rev. W. Denton, by a 
careful examination of the constitutions and de- 
erees of diocesan and provincial synods during 
the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The 
refusal of the cup to the laity in the Latin Com- 
munion was a gradual and not a sudden change; 
originally introduced to meet the sentiment of 
veneration which the Oriental Church yielded to 
by the practice of intinction. It gained ground 
but slowly in England. In the constitutions of 
Archbishop Peckham, in 1281 (see Wilkins’s Con- 
cilia Magne Britannia, vol.ii. p. 52.), it is ordered 
that, in the province of Canterbury, “ the Jaity 
were to be instructed that what was drunk by 
them in the cup was not the sacrament, but mere 
wine given them that they might more easily 
swallow the body of the Lord. In the smaller 
parish churches (minoribus ecclestis), they only 
who celebrated were allowed to receive the con- 
secrated wine.” In 1281, then the custom had be- 
gun of giving unconsecrated wine in the smaller 
churches, while we may infer that in the cathe- 
drals and abbey minsters the sacramental cup 
was still administered to the laity. But this cus- 
tom did not gain ground very speedily ; and in 
the diocese of Exeter, in 1287, the laity still gene- 
rally received “the outward and visible sign” of 
the Redeemer’s blood, In the decrees of the 
