2"d S. VI. 155., Dec. 18. '58.] NOTES AND QUERIES. 



503 



8, not 537, 8 as stated in "iV. 8f Q.") in giving ex- 

 tracts from Tyndale's and Coverdule's translations 

 of the New Testament. In fairness, however, it 

 should be added that Anderson's inaccuracies re- 

 late principally to the spelling of words, and do 

 not affect his argument. Mk. Offor adds, that 

 what renders this carelessness " more unpardon- 

 able is, that the reprints both of Coverdale and of 

 Tyndale are accurate." With regard to Cover- 

 dale, as far as I have examined the reprint, I 

 should judge that the statement is correct ; but I 

 am sorry to say this is far from being the case in 

 respect to the Tyndale. It is well known to Bible 

 collectors that the only perfect copy of Tyndale's 

 first 8vo. New Testament is preserved in the 

 library of the Baptist College, Bristol. The re- 

 print of this unique volume was edited by Me. 

 Offor himself in 1836. On this account it is by 

 no means a pleasant task to complain of its inac- 

 curacy ; yet as the original can be examined by 

 very ievr, and those who addict themselves to 

 these studies are compelled to depend on the re- 

 print, it seems to be the more needful in conse- 

 quence of Mr. Offor's authentication of it, to 

 state distinctly that it abounds in inaccuracies. 



In the first place there are wliat may be termed 

 systematic errors throughout the whole volume, 

 arising from the form and manner of the reprint : 

 thus the contractions of the original are not re- 

 produced, a plan in itself undesirable, and some- 

 times leading to positive inaccuracy : thus again, 

 though the original has only one form of letter for 

 the capital I or J, the reprint employs both capi- 

 tals according to our modern usage ; and so we 

 lave the word Jeives where in the original the 

 initial letter is a capital, and ieives where, as is 

 frequently the case, the word begins with a small 

 letter, though no dilference of spelling is intended 

 in the original : and thus again the reprint does 

 not adhere to the capitals as given in the original ; 

 60 that we have the first word in each chapter of 

 the reprint in capitals, though only two letters are 

 capitals in the original. But besides these syste- 

 matic errors the actual misprints are very nume- 

 rous. It may be confidently afBrmed that few 

 pages are printed with entire correctness. By 

 way of test I have opened the reprint at random 

 in ail parts of the volume, and have compared the 

 original with the page presented until 1 came to 

 a misprint. Out of fifty such trials, I met with a 

 misprint twice in the first line of the page, eleven 

 times in tlie second, eight times in tlie third, four 

 times in the fourth, twice in the fiftli, in one in- 

 stance not till the thirty-fifth, and in two pages 

 (one of the text, the other the first page of the 

 address "To the Reder" at the end), 1 found no 

 actual crrutuvi ; that is, none excej)t wliat I have 

 termed .systeinatic errors. On an average, tlie 

 first actual misprint occurred in the eightii line ; 

 and, as there are forty-three lines in a lull page, 



2"JS. VI. K''. 155.] 



we should have an average of about five misprints 

 in each p.ige. I cannot say that this estimate is 

 accurate, but I judge that it is not far from the 

 truth. The greatest number of misprints I have 

 noticed in one page is eight. To give one ex- 

 ample at length, I will take the page of the re- 

 print (fol. cxxi.), at the end of which the greater 

 part of the consecutive quotation given by Ander- 

 son occurs. There are in this page five errata, as 

 will be seen by the following list : — 



Reprint. Original. 



Line 2. lawe - - - - laj'e. 

 „ 14. often - - - - ofte. 

 „ 28. the ... - tho. 

 In the following line 

 tho is given correctly. 



„ 43. witnessynge - - witnessyng. 



„ — small - - - - sraale. 



The first, and perhaps the last, of these is a 

 misprint in the original ; but neither should have 

 been altered in the reprint, at least without notice. 

 The last two occur in the verses quoted by An- 

 derson ; so that, if he had copied the reprint with 

 the utmost accuracy, he would not have been 

 saved from mistake. Any of your readers who 

 have access to the reprint, and also to Anderson's 

 Annals, where a facsimile is given of the first 

 two pages of Tyndale, may judge for themselves. 

 There are in these two pages abundant instances 

 of both the kinds of error which I have pointed 

 out. F. W. GOTCH. 



Baptist College, Bristol. 



PIE-GKIECHE. 



(a-"* S. vi. 458.) 



There are several varieties of the pie-grieche; 

 but the kind referred to by Sismondi, which is 

 common in France, is the same that our English 

 naturalists describe as the hutcher-bird {\jn,nms ex- 

 cubitor Lin.). A full description of this singular 

 bird may be found in Sonnini's ed. of Buffbn, 

 An. IX. (of the Republic), vol. xxxix. p. 268., &c. ; 

 and especially in Sonnini's excellent " Addition," 

 p.275.&c. Sonnini begins — " La mechancete de la 

 pie-grieche est passee en proverbe ; on lui compare 

 les femmes querelleuses et acariatres." This com- 

 parison certainly does great injustice to the 

 " femmes querelleuses; " for the pie-grieche stands 

 charged with heinous crimes; such as strangling 

 little birds by nipping their throats (whence the 

 Germans call him wiirger, the throttler), splitting 

 their skulls, picking out their brain and eyes, im- 

 paling them on thorns, and tearing them to pieces. 

 It appears that Louis XIII. was not the only 

 monarch who patronised the pie-grieche ; for Son- 

 nini adds, p. 278., " Turnerus rapportc que le roi 

 Fran(;()is V-' avoit coutume de chasser avec una 

 pie-griiiche privce " [privoc, one that had been 



