KRRATA RECEPTA. 61' 



an established misprint. No satisfactory account of the term is 

 given by the etymologists. May it not be an uncorrected erratum, 

 if not for consert, at least for concent ? Either word, considered in 

 respect to derivation, would give the idea desired to be conveyed. 

 One note more and we have done with cases of this sort : " Manifold" 

 is also a word fixed now in the language in an altered state by means, 

 mainly, of a wrong typography. In the old English it is, according 

 to its obvious etymology, " many-folde." Thus in Nicholas TJdall's 

 translation of the Preface of Erasmus to St. .John's Gospel (temp. Ed. 

 vi,), we read of the prince " that pouUeth the people, that oppresseth 

 the poore, that by wars defaceth alle both good and bade, he that is 

 the occasion of many folds calamities," &c. And in Shakspeare's 

 Lover's Lament : 



" The heaveu-hued sapphire and the opal blend 

 With objects manyfold." 



It might as well have remained in this form, luminous to the eye like 

 "many-sided." But "manifest" (connected with munus) had an 

 influence ; or the i in multiplex. 



In a book so carefully printed as is the English version of the Bible 

 generally, it is not to be expected that errors of typography remain 

 undiscovered. Rewards, I believe, are offered by the Privileged prin- 

 ters for the detection of literal faults in the costly folio editions. In 

 the time of the Commonwealth, impressions of the Scriptures came 

 forth that abounded with typographical errors. In one of them, it is 

 said, so many as six thousand mistakes have been enumerated. In 

 1632, the Royal printers were fined in the sum of ^3000, for over- 

 looking the omission of " not," in one of the commandments. Arch- 

 bishop Ussher, on one occasion, having to purchase a Bible in a 

 hurry, in his way to preach, at Paul's Cross, found, to his astonish- 

 ment and dismay, that the text, on which he was about to hold forth, 

 was not therein contained. Certain copies of the Bible, which happen 

 to have, in one place, the misprint of vinegar for vineyard, fetch an 

 extra price among book-hunters. It does not appear why an error 

 which, typographically, is so natural, should be considered especially 

 curious. An Edinburgh edition of the Scriptures, of the date 1637, 

 gives a more unfortunate perversion to a passage, by reading " religi- 

 ous " where it ought to " rebellious." — One or two minute matters, 

 involving verbal error, connected with the typography of the English 



