ers looking at an armillary globe, imbedded in the following inscription, 'Tabule Tabularum Celestium Motuum Divi Alfonsi Regis Romanorum et Castelle illustrissim.'
Again, the Summa de Arithmetica, &c., of Lucas Pacioli, 1494, has the first pages (18) differently printed in different copies, ending with different words. This one book begins in three different ways, certainly; perhaps in more.
The reader who wishes to find more extensive accounts of bibliographical difficulties is referred to the report of the Commissioners mentioned at the beginning of this article, and (19) to its appendix. He may also consult the Quarterly Review, No. 143, May 1843, or the Dublin Review, No. 41, September 1846. We need not add more examples; we content ourselves with the production of enough to show those who have only seen the popular view of the the controversy, that there is a case on the other side which it is easy to support by instances. And this case might be much strengthened by having recourse to examples from literature instead of science: the former subject presents a wider field, more causes of accidental confusion, and more cases of intentional obscurity.
Much of the misapprehension which has prevailed on the question of library catalogues in this country, has probably arisen from the anomalous position in which the Museum library has been placed. On the one hand, it is the resort, daily or occasional, not only of those who know what accurate research is, but also of those who are learning it, who arrive thither to make some investigation, and are lead on, by the genius loci and the temptation of ready means at hand, until they attain a depth far beyond their first intention. It is difficult to overrate what this national library has done, and is doing, for the cause of accuracy. And though a certain writer who describes himself, by
20
