Chapter XV: Part 15

James, Thomas: Humble Request: see 1625.

Jesuits Pater Noster: see 1611.

Laet, Jaspar: see 1518.

Latin Grammar: see 1481, 1483.

Logic: see 1483.

Lyndewoode, Will.: see 1483.

Oxford, Merton College: see 1623.

—— University: Encyclopædia: see 1635.

—— —— Orders for the Market: see 1602, 1606.

Philosophy: de Philosophia: see 1586.

Shepery, John: see 1586.

Terence: see 1483.

Thornborough, John, bp. of Bristol: see 1605.

Thornburgh, Edw.: see 1639.

W., R.: Merry jests: see 1617.

W(alkington), T(homas): see 1631.

APPENDIX A.
The Fifteenth Century Press.

(Supplementary to, and corrective of, pp. 1–4.)

The Oxford Press of the fifteenth century is a peculiarly interesting one. At present fifteen works are known to belong to it, ranging in date from “1468” (1478?) to 1486 (1486/7?). Not only is its origin quite independent, so far as is known, of Caxton’s printing, not only are new products of the press still from time to time discovered, but the battle which has been waged about the date of its establishment has made the “1468” book a veritable typographical battleground, and in Henry Bradshaw’s opinion a touchstone of intellectual acumen.

In the first place some details of the various books will be given: then an account of the type and presswork: and lastly a description of each book supplementary to, and corrective of, that contained on pp. 1–4.

DETAILS OF THE EARLY OXFORD PRESS.

┌───────────┬───────────────┬───────────┬─────┬─────────────┐ │NO. DATE. │ PLACE NAMED. │ PRINTER │TYPE │SHORT TITLE. │ │ │ │ NAMED. │USED.│ │ ├───────────┼───────────────┼───────────┼─────┼─────────────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├───────────┼───────────────┼───────────┼─────┼─────────────┤ │ 1 “1468,”│ Oxonia │ —— │ 1 │ ¬Jerome¬ │ │ Dec. 17│ │ │ │ │ │ 2 1479 │Oxonia (or -ae,│ —— │ 1 │ ¬Aretinus¬ │ │ │ plural) │ │ │ │ │ 3 1479/80│ Oxonia │ —— │ 1 │ ¬Ægidius¬ │ │ (?), │ │ │ │ │ │ Mar. │ │ │ │ │ │ 14. │ │ │ │ │ ├───────────┼───────────────┼───────────┼─────┼─────────────┤ │ 4 [1480?]│ —— │ —— │ 2 │ ¬Cicero¬ │ │ 5 [1481?]│ —— │ —— │ 2 │ ¬Latin │ │ │ │ │ │ Grammar¬ │ │ 6 1481, │ Alma │Theodoricus│2, 3 │ ¬Ales¬ │ │ Oct. 11│ universitas │ Rood de │ │ │ │ │ Oxon̄. │ Colonia │ │ │ │ 7 1482, │ —— │ —— │2, 3 │¬Latteburius¬│ │ July 31│ │ │ │ │ ├───────────┼───────────────┼───────────┼─────┼─────────────┤ │ 8 [1483?]│ —— │ —— │4, 5,│ ¬Anwykyll¬, │ │ │ │ │ 6 │ with │ │ │ │ │ │ ¬Vulgaria¬ │ │ │ │ │ │ (two │ │ │ │ │ │ editions) │ │ 9 [1483?]│ —— │ —— │4, 5,│ ¬Augustine¬ │ │ │ │ │ 6 │ │ │ 10 [1483?]│ —— │ —— │4, 6 │ ¬Hampole¬ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 11 [1483?]│ —— │ —— │4, 6 │ ¬Logic¬ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 12 [1483?]│ —— │ —— │3, 4,│¬Lyndewoode¬ │ │ │ │ │5, 6 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 13 1485 │ Alma │Teodoricus │3, 5 │ ¬Phalaris¬ │ │ │ universitas │ Rood de │ │ │ │ │ Oxoniae │ Colonia, │ │ │ │ │ │and Thomas │ │ │ │ │ │ Hunte │ │ │ │ │ │ Anglicus │ │ │ │ 14 [1485?]│ —— │ —— │4, 5,│ ¬Textus │ │ │ │ │ 7 │ Alexandri¬ │ │ 15 1486/7 │ —— │ —— │5, 7 │ ¬Festial¬ │ │ [?] │ │ │ │ │ └───────────┴───────────────┴───────────┴─────┴─────────────┘ ┌────┬─────────────┬────────────────────────────────────┐ │NO. │SHORT TITLE. │ PAPER AND MAKE-UP. │ │ │ │ │ ├────┼─────────────┼────────┬────────┬───────────┬──────┤ │ │ │Size by │Size by │ Size by │Copies│ │ │ │folding.│make-up.│appearance.│ on │ │ │ │ │ │ │vellum│ │ │ │ │ │ │known.│ ├────┼─────────────┼────────┼────────┼───────────┼──────┤ │ 1 │ ¬Jerome¬ │ double │ eights │ sm. 4^o │ ⨀ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 2 │ ¬Aretinus¬ │ double │ eights │ sm. 4^o │ ⨀ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 3 │ ¬Ægidius¬ │ double │ eights │ sm. 4^o │ ⨀ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├────┼─────────────┼────────┼────────┼───────────┼──────┤ │ 4 │ ¬Cicero¬ │ double │ sixes │ sm. 4^o │ ⨀ │ │ 5 │ ¬Latin │ double │ ? │ sm. 4^o │ ⨀ │ │ │ Grammar¬ │ │ │ │ │ │ 6 │ ¬Ales¬ │ single │ eights │ folio │ + │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 7 │¬Latteburius¬│ single │ eights │ folio │ + │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├────┼─────────────┼────────┼────────┼───────────┼──────┤ │ 8 │ ¬Anwykyll¬, │ double │ eights │ sm. 4^o │ ⨀ │ │ │ with │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ¬Vulgaria¬ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ (two │ │ │ │ │ │ │ editions) │ │ │ │ │ │ 9 │ ¬Augustine¬ │ double │ eight │ sm. 4^o │ ⨀ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 10 │ ¬Hampole¬ │ double │ sixes │ sm. 4^o │ ⨀ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 11 │ ¬Logic¬ │ double │ sixes │ sm. 4^o │ ⨀ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 12 │¬Lyndewoode¬ │ single │eights &│ folio │ + │ │ │ │ │ sixes │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 13 │ ¬Phalaris¬ │ double │ eights │ sm. 4^o │ ⨀ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 14 │ ¬Textus │ ? │ ? │ sm. 4^o │ ⨀ │ │ │ Alexandri¬ │ │ │ │ │ │ 15 │ ¬Festial¬ │ single │eights &│ folio │ ⨀ │ │ │ │ │ sixes │ │ │ └────┴─────────────┴────────┴────────┴───────────┴──────┘ ┌────┬─────────────┬───────────────────────────────┐ │NO. │SHORT TITLE. │ COMPOSITION. │ │ │ │ │ ├────┼─────────────┼───────────┬─────────┬─────────┤ │ │ │Signatures.│ No. of │ Size of │ │ │ │ │pages.[6]│ printed │ │ │ │ │ │page.[7] │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├────┼─────────────┼───────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ │ 1 │ ¬Jerome¬ │ a, b, &c. │ 84 │ 4¾ × 2¾ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 2 │ ¬Aretinus¬ │ a, b, &c. │ 348 │ 4¾ × 2¾ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 3 │ ¬Ægidius¬ │ a, b, &c. │ 48 │ 4¾ × 2¾ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├────┼─────────────┼───────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ │ 4 │ ¬Cicero¬ │ a, b, &c. │ 60 │ 5⅛ × 3½ │ │ 5 │ ¬Latin │ a, b, &c. │ — │5–5/16 × │ │ │ Grammar¬ │ │ │ 3–7/16 │ │ 6 │ ¬Ales¬ │a, b, &c.; │ 480 │ 7½ × 4¾ │ │ │ │ A, B, &c. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 7 │¬Latteburius¬│a, b, &c.; │ 584 │ 7⅞ × 4⅞ │ │ │ │ A, B, &c. │ │ │ ├────┼─────────────┼───────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ │ 8 │ ¬Anwykyll¬, │ a, b, &c. │ 244 │ 4⅝ – │ │ │ with │ │ │5–3/16 × │ │ │ ¬Vulgaria¬ │ │ │ 3½ – │ │ │ (two │ │ │ 4–3/16 │ │ │ editions) │ │ │ │ │ 9 │ ¬Augustine¬ │ a │ 16 │ 4½ × │ │ │ │ │ │ 2–15/16 │ │ 10 │ ¬Hampole¬ │ a, b, &c. │ 128 │5–7/16 × │ │ │ │ │ │ 3⅜ │ │ 11 │ ¬Logic¬ │A, B, &c.; │ 328 │ 5⅜ × 3⅜ │ │ │ │ A a, B b, │ │ │ │ │ │ &c. │ │ │ │ 12 │¬Lyndewoode¬ │a, b, &c.; │ 732 │10½ × 6¼ │ │ │ │A, B, &c.; │ │ – ⅜ │ │ │ │aa, bb, &c.│ │ │ │ 13 │ ¬Phalaris¬ │ a, b, &c. │ 136 │ 4⅞ × 2⅞ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 14 │ ¬Textus │ a, b, &c. │ — │5–5/16 × │ │ │ Alexandri¬ │ │ │ 3–3/16 │ │ 15 │ ¬Festial¬ │ a, b, &c. │ 348 │7–9/16 × │ │ │ │ │ │ 4–11/16 │ └────┴─────────────┴───────────┴─────────┴─────────┘

┌─────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │NO. SHORT TITLE. │ COMPOSITION (¡continued¡). │ ├─────────────────┼───────┬───────┬──────────┬────────┬──────────┤ │ │Columns│ Lines │ Printing │ Page │Headlines.│ │ │ in a │ in a │begins on │even at │ │ │ │ page. │column.│signature.│ side. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─────────────────┼───────┼───────┼──────────┼────────┼──────────┤ │ 1 ¬Jerome¬ │ 1 │ 25 │ a 1 │usually │ ⨀ │ │ 2 ¬Aretinus¬ │ 1 │ 25 │ a 2 │ + │ ⨀ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 3 ¬Ægidius¬ │ 1 │ 25 │ a 2 │ + │ ⨀ │ ├─────────────────┼───────┼───────┼──────────┼────────┼──────────┤ │ 4 ¬Cicero¬ │ 1 │ 19 │ a 2? │ + │ ⨀ │ │ 5 ¬Latin │ 1 │ 27 │ ? │ + │ ⨀ │ │ Grammar¬ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 6 ¬Ales¬ │ 2 │ 38 │ a 2 │ + │ ⨀ │ │ 7 ¬Latteburius¬│ 2 │ 40 │ a 2 │ + │ + │ ├─────────────────┼───────┼───────┼──────────┼────────┼──────────┤ │ 8 ¬Anwykyll¬, │ 1 │ 22? │ ? │ + │ ⨀ │ │ with │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ¬Vulgaria¬ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ (two │ │ │ │ │ │ │ editions) │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 9 ¬Augustine¬ │ 1 │ 26–7 │ a 2 │ + │ ⨀ │ │ 10 ¬Hampole¬ │ 1 │ 31 │ a 2 │ + │ ⨀ │ │ 11 ¬Logic¬ │ 1 │ 31 │ a 2 │ + │ ⨀ │ │ 12 ¬Lyndewoode¬ │ 2 │ 46 or │ a 2 (a │ + │ + │ │ │ │ 60 │ 1^v) │ │ │ │ 13 ¬Phalaris¬ │ 1 │ 21 │ a 1^v │ + │ ⨀ │ │ 14 ¬Textus │ 1 │ — │ ? │ + │ ⨀ │ │ Alexandri¬ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 15 ¬Festial¬ │ 2 │ 33 │ a 1^v │ + │ ⨀ │ └─────────────────┴───────┴───────┴──────────┴────────┴──────────┘ ┌─────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │NO. SHORT TITLE. │ COMPOSITION (¡continued¡). │ ├─────────────────┼─────────┬──────────┬─────┬──────────┬────────────┤ │ │Marginal │Paragraphs│Space│Directors.│Punctuation.│ │ │printing.│set back. │left │ │ . : , ? () │ │ │ │ │ for │ │ │ │ │ │ │caps.│ │ │ ├─────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼─────┼──────────┼────────────┤ │ 1 ¬Jerome¬ │ ⨀ │ + │ + │ once │ + + ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ │ │ 2 ¬Aretinus¬ │ ⨀ │ + │ + │ once, in │ + + ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ │ │ │ │ │ │ one copy │ │ │ 3 ¬Ægidius¬ │ ⨀ │ + │ + │ ⨀ │ + + ⨀ + ⨀ │ ├─────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼─────┼──────────┼────────────┤ │ 4 ¬Cicero¬ │ ⨀ │ ⨀? │ ? │ ? │+ + (/) + + │ │ 5 ¬Latin │ ⨀ │ + │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ + ⨀ ⨀ ? ? │ │ Grammar¬ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 6 ¬Ales¬ │ ⨀ │ + │ + │ ⨀ │ + ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ │ │ 7 ¬Latteburius¬│ + │ + │ + │ ⨀ │ + ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ │ ├─────────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼─────┼──────────┼────────────┤ │ 8 ¬Anwykyll¬, │ ⨀ │ + │ + │ once │ + ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ │ │ with │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ¬Vulgaria¬ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ (two │ │ │ │ │ │ │ editions) │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 9 ¬Augustine¬ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ + │ ⨀ │ + + ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ │ │ 10 ¬Hampole¬ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ + │ ⨀ │ + ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ │ │ 11 ¬Logic¬ │ ⨀ │ + │ + │ + │ + ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ │ │ 12 ¬Lyndewoode¬ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ + │ ⨀ │ + ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 13 ¬Phalaris¬ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ + │ ⨀ │ + ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ │ │ 14 ¬Textus │ ⨀ │ ? │ ? │ ⨀ │ + ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ │ │ Alexandri¬ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 15 ¬Festial¬ │ ⨀ │ + │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ + ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ ⨀ │ └─────────────────┴─────────┴──────────┴─────┴──────────┴────────────┘ ┌─────────────────┬───────────────────╥─────────────────────────┐ │NO. SHORT TITLE. │ PRINTING. ║ ILLUSTRATIONS. │ ├─────────────────┼─────┬───────┬─────╫────────┬────────┬───────┤ │ │Pages│Spaced.│ Red ║Borders.│Woodcuts│Woodcut│ │ │at a │ │ ink ║ │in text.│ caps. │ │ │time.│ │used.║ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ ├─────────────────┼─────┼───────┼─────╫────────┼────────┼───────┤ │ 1 ¬Jerome¬ │ 1 │ ⨀ │ ⨀ ║ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ 2 ¬Aretinus¬ │ 2 │ ⨀ │ ⨀ ║ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 3 ¬Ægidius¬ │ 2 │ ⨀ │ + ║ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ├─────────────────┼─────┼───────┼─────╫────────┼────────┼───────┤ │ 4 ¬Cicero¬ │ 2? │ + │ ⨀ ║ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ 5 ¬Latin │ ? │ ⨀ │ ⨀ ║ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ Grammar¬ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 6 ¬Ales¬ │ 2 │ ⨀ │ ⨀ ║ + │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ 7 ¬Latteburius¬│ 2 │ ⨀ │ ⨀ ║ + │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ├─────────────────┼─────┼───────┼─────╫────────┼────────┼───────┤ │ 8 ¬Anwykyll¬, │ 2? │ ⨀ │ ⨀ ║ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ with │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ ¬Vulgaria¬ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ (two │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ editions) │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 9 ¬Augustine¬ │ ? │ ⨀ │ ⨀ ║ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ 10 ¬Hampole¬ │ 4? │ ⨀ │ ⨀ ║ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ 11 ¬Logic¬ │ 4? │ ⨀ │ ⨀ ║ ⨀ │ + │ ⨀ │ │ 12 ¬Lyndewoode¬ │ ? │ ⨀ │ ⨀ ║ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 13 ¬Phalaris¬ │ 2 │ ⨀ │ ⨀ ║ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ 14 ¬Textus │ ? │ ⨀ │ ⨀ ║ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ Alexandri¬ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ │ 15 ¬Festial¬ │ ? │ ⨀ │ ⨀ ║ ⨀ │ + │ + │ └─────────────────┴─────┴───────┴─────╨────────┴────────┴───────┘

OWNERS OF COPIES.

┌───────────────┬───────┬─────────┬──────────┬────────┐ │No. │British│Bodleian.│Cambridge │ John │ │ │Museum.│ │University│Rylands │ │ │ │ │ Library. │Library.│ ├───────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │ 1 Jerome │ 1 │ 1[8] │ 1 │ 1 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 2 Aretinus │ 1 │ 1[8] │ ⨀ │ 1 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 3 Ægidius │ ⨀ │ 1 │ ⨀ │ 1 │ │ 4 Cicero │ ⨀ │ ⨀[8] │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ 5 Latin │ ⨀[8] │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ Grammar │ │ │ │ │ │ 6 Ales │ 1[8] │ 1[8] │ 2[8] │ 1 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 7 Latteburius│ 1[8] │ 1[8] │ 2 │ 1 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 8 Anwykyll, │ ½ │ 1½ │ ½[8] │ ½ │ │ with │ │ │ │ │ │ Vulgaria │ │ │ │ │ │ 9 Hampole │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ 2 │ 1 │ │ 10 Logic │ ⨀ │ ⨀[8] │ ⨀[8] │ ⨀ │ │ 11 Lyndewoode │ 3 │ 1[8] │ 2 │ 1 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 12 Augustine │ 1 │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ 13 Phalaris │ ⨀ │ ⨀[8] │ ⨀ │ 1 │ │ 14 Textus │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ Alexandri│ │ │ │ │ │ 15 Festial │ ⨀[8] │ 1½ │ ⨀ │ 1 │ ├───────────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┤ │ Totals │ 8½ │ 9 │ 9½ │ 9½ │ │ Different │ 6½ │ 8 │ 5½ │ 9½ │ │ books │ │ │ │ │ └───────────────┴───────┴─────────┴──────────┴────────┘ ┌───────────────┬─────────┬─────────┬──────────────┬───────┐ │No. │ Oxford │Cambridge│ Other owners │ Total │ │ │Colleges,│Colleges.│ of copies. │ of │ │ │ &c. │ │ │copies.│ ├───────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────────────┼───────┤ │ 1 Jerome │ 3 │ ⨀ │Huth Library, │ 12 │ │ │ │ │ Earl of │ │ │ │ │ │ Pembroke, │ │ │ │ │ │ Sir H. │ │ │ │ │ │ Dryden, │ │ │ │ │ │ Paris, │ │ │ │ │ │ America. │ │ │ 2 Aretinus │ ⨀[A] │ ⨀ │Norwich │ 7 │ │ │ │ │ Cathedral, │ │ │ │ │ │ Earl of │ │ │ │ │ │ Pembroke, │ │ │ │ │ │ Chetham │ │ │ │ │ │ Library, │ │ │ │ │ │ Lord │ │ │ │ │ │ Ashburnham. │ │ │ 3 Ægidius │ 1 │ ⨀ │ │ 3 │ │ 4 Cicero │ ⨀[8] │ ⨀ │ │ ⨀ │ │ 5 Latin │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ ⨀ │ │ Grammar │ │ │ │ │ │ 6 Ales │ 8[8] │ ⨀[8] │Durham and │ 16 │ │ │ │ │ Lincoln │ │ │ │ │ │ Cathedrals, │ │ │ │ │ │ Dulwich │ │ │ │ │ │ College. │ │ │ 7 Latteburius│ 3[8] │ 2[8] │Lambeth, │ 15 │ │ │ │ │ Westminster,│ │ │ │ │ │ Stonyhurst, │ │ │ │ │ │ Brussels, T.│ │ │ │ │ │ E. Cooke, │ │ │ │ │ │ Esq. │ │ │ 8 Anwykyll, │ ⨀ │ ⨀[8] │ │ (3) │ │ with │ │ │ │ │ │ Vulgaria │ │ │ │ │ │ 9 Hampole │ ⨀ │ ⨀[8] │ │ 3 │ │ 10 Logic │ 2 │ ⨀[8] │ │ 2 │ │ 11 Lyndewoode │ 3 │ 4 │Edinburgh │ 20 │ │ │ │ │ (Advocates’ │ │ │ │ │ │ Library), │ │ │ │ │ │ Durham │ │ │ │ │ │ Cathedral, │ │ │ │ │ │ Glasgow, │ │ │ │ │ │ Paris, E. G.│ │ │ │ │ │ Duff, Esq., │ │ │ │ │ │ Lord │ │ │ │ │ │ Crawford. │ │ │ 12 Augustine │ ⨀ │ ⨀ │ │ 1 │ │ 13 Phalaris │ 2[8] │ ⨀[8] │ │ 3 │ │ 14 Textus │ ⨀ │ ⨀[8] │ │ ⨀ │ │ Alexandri│ │ │ │ │ │ 15 Festial │ ⨀[8] │ ⨀ │Lambeth. │ 3½ │ ├───────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────────────┼───────┤ │ Totals │ 22 │ 6 │ 24 │ 88½ │ │ Different │ │ │ │ │ │ books │ │ │ │ │ └───────────────┴─────────┴─────────┴──────────────┴───────┘

The finest set is undoubtedly possessed by the John Rylands Library at Manchester.

THE TYPE AND PRESS-WORK.

Seven kinds of type were used, the use of which can be seen on p. 238. Facsimiles of all of them are given in plates II-V.

These obviously divide the books into three groups. In the first group of three (“1468”–1479/80) only type no. 1 is used. In the second group of four (1480–82, Theodoric Rood) only types 2–3 are found. In the last group consisting of eight (1483–1486/7, T. Rood and Thomas Hunte) only types 4–7 are used, except that the peculiar black initial type (no. 3) is occasionally still used.

The press was of course a wooden hand-screw one, which was at first employed to print one page at a time (Jerome), but after the first book two pages and perhaps later four were struck off together. The earliest printing press of which we have an engraving is as late as 1499/500 (see an article in ©Bibliographica©, 1894, no. 2), but there was great conservatism in detail, and from the early engravings and such researches as those which Blades, De Vinne, Talbot Reed, and others have made, we know many of the details of working in the earliest days.

_Type_ 1. “1468”—1479/80.

Character:—Cologne black.

Body:—English, nearly (10 lines = 1–15/16 in. In modern English 10 lines = 1⅞ in.).

Used in the Jerome, Aretinus and Aegidius, with no other.

The “upper case” (to use a modern expression) consisted of at least 16 divisions, G, J, K, L, T, U, W, X, Y, Z not being used, and P seldom in the Jerome, H being there used for both H and P. This misuse is not found in the other two books. On the other hand there are two forms of C, E, N, and Q, both probably mixed in the same division. Q is in the Jerome almost always [reversed Q] (a peculiarity found in some ornamental MSS., from the convenience of extending the tail into the margin), in the Aretinus and Aegidius always Q: the letter is however identical in all three books, but being on a square body it is in the Jerome turned one quarter round.

* * * * *

The “lower case” consisted of at least 121 divisions. Of the simple unmodified letters k and z are wanting, and except in the Jerome j (but ij is found in all, colligated). There are two forms of p, r, and three of s, the two p’s and r’s being used indiscriminately, but the two s’s (final) and the ſ (initial and medial) having their proper use. Of colligated or modified letters there are at least eighty-three, and of other symbols eleven (for -et, &, con-, -us [two], id est, full stop, colon, ?). Of these 121 about 95 are common to all three. The signs of progress are as follows:—

In the Jerome, contrasted with the other two, Q is except in two places [reversed Q], H is generally used as P, and I have not elsewhere noticed ḃ, or j used by itself. On the other hand in the two others, and not in the Jerome, are found an extra short t in which the perpendicular stroke hardly appears at all above the horizontal line, and eleven new forms, including fe, ff, and pp in colligation. The Q and P are rightly used, always.

So too in the Jerome and Aretinus compared with the Aegidius we find that q is printed too high up, being in fact an inverted b, or, more accurately, an inverted broken h occasionally used for b. In the Jerome this is almost always the case, in the Aretinus as often as not, in the Aegidius hardly ever. It may be accidental that B and H and three minor modified letters are not found in the short Aegidius, that w (in wlt = vult) is only found in the Jerome, [·|·] (= id est) only in the Aretinus: but the occurrence of ؟ (= ?) and of printing in red ink _only_ in the Aegidius, is not insignificant.

The relative order of the three may therefore be assumed to be as above indicated.

_Origin of the type._

It may be taken as certain that as Caxton’s type is based on Bruges models, so the first Oxford type is ultimately derived from Cologne. Ulric Zel began printing there at least as early as 1466, and the general resemblance to his letters is clear. The likeness is still nearer when we follow Zel’s influence on Arnold ther Hoernen (Cologne, from 1470), Richard Paffroet of Cologne (Deventer, from 1477), and especially a little-known Cologne printer named Gerard ten Raem de Bercka, whose only dated book is of 1478. John of Westphalia (Alost and Louvain, from 1473) and Jacobus de Breda, a successor of Paffroet at Deventer, also supply similarities. In the case of Gerard we actually find, besides a close general similarity, the same misuse of H as P. Unfortunately no works printed by him, except the dated ©Modus Confitendi© and an undated ©Aesopus©, are at present known, so that it must not be assumed that 1478 is his earliest or only date.

It is at present also unsafe to assume that Theodoricus Rood of Cologne who printed at Oxford in 1481–85 was the first Oxford printer, or ever used type no. 1.

_Type_ 2 (1480?-1482).

Character:—Narrow Dutch Black.

Body:—English, nearly (10 lines = just less than 2 in.).

Used in the Cicero (1480?: by itself), Latin Grammar (1481?: by itself), Ales (1481: chiefly, but with no. 3), and Latteburius (1482: chiefly, but with no. 3).

The “upper case” consisted of 22 letters (J, K, U, W omitted).

* * * * *

The “lower case” consisted of at least 131 divisions. Of the simple letters j only occurs in colligation with i (as ij), and there are two forms of r, s (s, ſ) and y. There are about 93 colligated or modified letters.

Unfortunately it is very difficult to institute a close comparison of the use of letters, so as to establish a proper order of the books, in consequence of the fragmentary state of the Milo and the Latin Grammar. The Milo can be clearly separated from the rest: the type is _spaced_, so that 10 lines = between 2–9/16 and 2¾ in., and ( ), ؟ (= ?), | (= comma) are found in it alone. In fact, but for the closest resemblance of actual type, the Milo would have to be regarded as printed elsewhere: and it cannot yet be said to be quite certainly printed at Oxford. The Ales and Latteburius are hardly to be distinguished in the use of type, but I have observed w only in the Latteburius and Grammar.

The origin of the type is probably to be looked for near Cologne, from whence came Theodoricus Rood, the avowed printer of the Ales, and where a Theodoricus, who may probably be identified with Rood, printed in 1485–6 in a type smaller than, but similar to, the present one. The narrow stilted look of the letters and the semicircular sweep in front of the A are noticeable features. Henry Bradshaw detected a similarity between this type and that of Arnold ther Hoernen at Cologne.

_Type_ 3 (1481–1485).

Character:—Heading and initial Black, a large special type.

Body:—2-line English, nearly (10 lines = 4 in. -, 10 lines of 2-line English = 3¾ in. +).

Used only in the Ales (1481) and Latteburius (1482) (for the beginnings of chapters), in the Lyndewoode (1483?: head lines) and the Phalaris (1485: one line).

The type is too sparsely used to enable us to describe the extent of the fount: but F, G, J, j, K, k, v, W, w, X, Y, Z, z are not found: I and g have two forms each; s, ſ are found; V is only used for the number five; and nine modified or conjoined letters occur. The peculiarity of the letters is a slipped or detached upper corner in B, L, N, which is found in 1506 in Quentell’s printing at Cologne, and may be compared with a smaller form used by Jean Veldener at Culenburg in 1484.

_Type_ 4 (1483?-1485?).

Character:—Small Dutch Black.

Body:—Pica, nearly (10 lines = 1–11/16 + in., 10 lines in Pica = 1–11/16 – in.).

This is the small type of the Anwykyll and Lyndewoode (both 1483?), the ordinary type of the Hampole, Logic, and Augustine (all 1483?), and the small type of the Lyndewoode (1483?), and is used in the Textus Alexandri (1485?). It is in many details similar to type 2, but may be readily distinguished by the o being broad and round in type 4, instead of narrow and oval as in type 2. There are two forms of S in type 4, and only one in type 2. The capitals are identical with those of type 6.

The fount consisted of 25 capitals (J, V, W wanting, but two forms of D, S), 27 small letters (z wanting, but r, s double) and at least 95 modified or conjoined letters, in all not less than 147 types. Seven of the last class appear to be peculiar to the Logic, which may therefore be the latest of the group.

_Type_ 5 (1483–1486/7).

Character:—Small Caxtonian Black.

Body:—Great Primer, nearly (10 lines = 2–5/16 in., 10 lines of Great Primer = 2⅜ in.).

This is the larger type of the Anwykyll, the largest but one (ordinary large) of the Lyndewoode, the largest of the Augustine (all 1483?), the ordinary one of the Phalaris (1485), is used in the Textus Alexandri (1485?), and is the small type of the Festial (1486). The capitals are identical with those of type 7.

There are 19 capitals (J, K, V, W, X, Y, Z wanting) and 28 small letters (j, z wanting, but d, g, r, s double), and at least 44 modified or conjoined letters, five of which seem to be peculiar to the Festial, as is also the use of k. In all there were not less than 91 types.

_Type_ 6 (1483?).

Character:—Large Dutch Black, a Church type going with no. 4.

Body:—Pica, nearly (as no. 4).

This is the larger type of the Hampole, the larger type (two half lines only) of the Logic, the larger type imbedded in the small type of the Lyndewoode, the intermediate type (one line) in the Augustine, and occurs in the Anwykyll (all 1483?). The capitals are identical with those of type 4.

There are 22 capitals (J, K, V, W, Z wanting, but S double), 24 small letters (j, k, w, z wanting, but r, s double), and at least 16 modified or conjoined letters, in all not less than 62 types. Eight of the modified letters appear to be peculiar to the Hampole.

_Type_ 7 (1485?–1486/7).

Character:—Large Caxtonian Black, a Church type going with no. 5.

Body:—Great Primer, nearly (as no. 5).

This is used in the Textus Alexandri (1485?) and is the large type of the Festial (1486/7). The capitals are identical with those of type 5.

To judge from the Festial, there are 18 capitals (J, K, R, V, W, X, Y, Z not being used), 24 small letters (k, w, y, z not found, but r, s double), and at least 9 modified letters, 51 in all.

WATERMARKS.

At present the study of watermarks has not reached a stage at which they are able to contribute scientific proofs of high importance, nor will any proof be ever deducible from them except the earliest possible occurrence of an undated issue, although probabilities of concurrent printing may be arrived at. Only some plain facts, therefore, will be stated with respect to their occurrence in the early Oxford books.

If we take the first group (the Jerome, Aretinus and Aegidius), we find no less than 26, out of a total of 50. The Rufinus has seven (two shared with the others, one shared with the Aretinus only, one shared with the Latteburius, and three peculiar to itself). The Aretinus has 22, most of which are found in the later groups, but eight are peculiar to itself. The Aegidius has two only, common to the group.

In the second group (Cicero, Ales, Latteburius, Latin Grammar) there appear to be 28, of which four are common to all the groups, one is shared only with group one, seven only with group three, and sixteen are peculiar.

In the third group 38 occur, four of which are common to all the groups, nine are shared with the first alone, seven with the second alone, and eighteen are peculiar.

SEPARATE BOOKS.

1. ¬Jerome¬ (“1468,” see p. 1).

The treatise of Tyrannius Rufinus on the Apostles’ Creed, here ascribed to St. Jerome, was undoubtedly the first product of the Oxford press. It bears the date of 17 December, 1468, as the day on which the printing was finished. The colophon is clearly printed and bears no mark of haste, nor does it show the smallest trace of alteration in any of the copies seen by the present writer. Saturday is a reasonable day on which to conclude a work. A facsimile of the colophon is given in plate II.

Unfortunately for the peace of the bibliographer two spectres have haunted this book, one of which “pulveris exigui jactu” has been laid, but the other is not yet gone, although there is a prospect of ultimate eviction.

I. THE CORSELLIS FORGERY.

In 1664 Richard Atkyns, a Gloucestershire gentleman of some position, and educated at Balliol, issued a book, the title of which sets forth with unusual clearness the object of the volume:—“The Original and Growth of Printing: Collected Out of History, and the _Records_ of this Kingdome. Wherein is also Demonstrated, That Printing appertaineth to the _Prerogative Royal_; and is a Flower of the _Crown_ of _England_. By Richard Atkyns, _Esq_:” (London, printed by John Streater, for the Author, MDCLXIV: quarto: pp. [12] + 24). Atkyns’s object was to recommend himself to Charles II’s attention by proving that printing was a royal privilege: and for this it was very desirable that there should be evidence of the introduction of the art into England under royal protection. The testimony of Stowe—corroborated by Howell—that “William Caxton of London, Mercer,” introduced it in 1471, was unsuitable. Atkyns, however, came upon a copy of the “1468” Oxford book, and “the same most worthy Person who trusted me with the aforesaid Book, did also present me with the Copy of a Record and Manuscript in _Lambeth_-House, heretofore in his Custody, belonging to the See (and not to any particular Arch-Bishop of _Canterbury_); the substance whereof was this (though I hope, for publique satisfaction, the Record it self, in its due time, will appear).” Then ensues the following story:—

_Thomas Bourchier_, Arch-Biſhop of _Canterbury_, moved the then King
(_Hen._ the 6th) to uſe all poſſible means for procuring a
Printing-Mold (for ſo ’twas there called) to be brought into this
Kingdom; the King (a good Man, and much given to Works of this Nature)
readily hearkned to the Motion; and taking private Advice, how to
effect His Deſign, concluded it could not be brought about without
great Secrecy, and a conſiderable Sum of Money given to ſuch Perſon or
Perſons, as would draw off ſome of the Workmen from _Harlein_ in
_Holland_, where _John Cuthenberg_ had newly invented it, and was
himſelf perſonally at Work: ’Twas reſolv’d, that leſs then one
Thouſand Marks would not produce the deſir’d Effect: Towards which
Sum, the ſaid Arch-Biſhop preſented the King with Three Hundred Marks.
The Money being now prepared, the Management of the Deſign was
committed to Mr. _Robert Turnour_, who then was of the Roabs to the
King, and a Perſon moſt in Favour with Him, of any of his Condition:
Mr. _Turnour_ took to his Aſſiſtance Mr. _Caxton_, a Citizen of good
Abilities, who Trading much into _Holland_, might be a Creditable
Pretence, as well for his going, as ſtay in the _Low Countries_: Mr.
_Turnour_ was in Diſguiſe (his Beard and Hair ſhaven quite off) but
Mr. _Caxton_ appeared known and publique. They having received the
ſaid Sum of One Thouſand Marks, went firſt to _Amſterdam_, then to
_Leyden_, not daring to enter _Harlein_ it ſelf; for the Town was very
jealous, having impriſoned and apprehended divers Perſons, who came
from other Parts for the ſame purpoſe: They ſtaid till they had ſpent
the whole One Thouſand Marks in Gifts and Expences: So as the King was
fain to ſend Five Hundred Marks more, Mr. _Turnour_ having written to
the King, that he had almoſt done his Work; a Bargain (as he ſaid)
being ſtruck betwixt him and two _Hollanders_, for bringing off one of
the Work men, who ſhould ſufficiently diſcover and teach this New Art:
At laſt, with much ado, they got off one of the Under-Workmen, whoſe
Name was _Frederick Corſells_ (or rather _Corſellis_), who late one
Night ſtole from his Fellows in Diſguiſe, into a Veſſel prepared
before for that purpoſe; and ſo the Wind (favouring the Deſign)
brought him ſafe to _London_.

’Twas not thought ſo prudent, to ſet him on Work at _London_, (but by
the Arch-Biſhops meanes, who had been Vice-Chancellor, and afterwards
Chancellor of the Univerſity of _Oxon_) _Corſellis_ was carryed with a
Guard to _Oxon_; which Guard conſtantly watch’d, to prevent
_Corſellis_ from any poſſible Escape, till he had made good his
Promiſe, in teaching how to Print: So that at _Oxford_ Printing was
firſt ſet up in _England_, which was before there was any
Printing-Press, or Printer, in _France_, _Spain_, _Italy_, or
_Germany_, (except the City of _Mentz_) which claimes Seniority, as to
Printing, even of _Harlein_ it ſelf, calling her City, _Urbem
Maguntinam Artis Tipographicæ Inventricem primam_, though ’tis known
to be otherwiſe, that City gaining that Art by the Brother of one of
the Workmen of _Harlein_, who had learnt it at Home of his Brother,
and after ſet up for himſelf at _Mentz_.

This Preſs at _Oxon_ was at leaſt ten years before there was any
Printing in _Europe_ (except at _Harlein_, and _Mentz_) where alſo it
was but new born. This Preſs at _Oxford_, was afterwards found
inconvenient, to be the ſole Printing-place of _England_, as being too
far from _London_, and the Sea: Whereupon the King ſet up a Preſs at
St. _Albans_, and another in the Abby of _Weſtminster_, where they
Printed ſeveral Bookes of Divinity and Phyſick, (for the King, for
Reaſons beſt known to himſelf and Council) permitted then no Law-Books
to be Printed; nor did any Printer exerciſe that ART, but onely ſuch
as were the Kings ſworn Servants; the King himſelf having the Price
and Emolument for Printing Books.

Printing thus brought into _England_, was moſt Graciouſly received by
the King, and moſt cordially entertained by the Church, the Printers
having the Honour to be ſworn the King’s Servants, and the Favour to
Lodge in the very Boſome of the Church; as in _Weſtminſter_, St.
_Albans_, _Oxon_, &c.

As no one believes in this story it is not worth while to do more than to point out that no corroboration of it has ever been found, (much less the original record discovered), that Henry VI was deposed 4 March 1460/1, and that the type shows no resemblance to that of Haarlem. Nor does the rest of the book concern us. The tale, however, in the absence of contradiction, obtained some vogue, so that we find for instance in Layer Marney church in Essex some such inscription as the following “Præ-missus, non amissus, Nicolas Corsellis Armiger Dominus hujus manerii hic requiescit, hâc vitâ ad meliorem commigratus Anno D 1674 Die Octobris 19^o.

Artem typographi miratam Belgicus Anglis
Corsellis docuit, Regis prece munere victus.
Hic fuit extremis mercator cognitus Indis:
Incola jam cælis, virtus sua famaque vivent.

Johannes Corsellis ejus Executor & Consanguineus hoc monumentum posuit.” The Corsellis family came from Flanders in the 17th century. There is no question that this clumsy forgery of Atkyns has had its effect in befogging the subject to which it relates, and has predisposed critics to suspect the date of the first Oxford book.

II. THE DISPUTED DATE, “1468.”

The first who threw doubt on the recorded date of the Jerome was Conyers Middleton in his ©Dissertation on the origin of Printing© published in 1735, and since then the opinion that 1468 is an error for 1478 (an X having dropped out of “MCCCCLXXVIII”) has steadily gained ground with the advance of critical methods, until authorities like Bradshaw and Blades and Duff have come to regard the question as settled. The only two separate and formal defences of the date (not counting incidental passages in books) are a MS. in the Guildhall Library in London, in a volume of Stukeley’s ©Palæographia Britannica© marked B. 2. 1, perhaps written in about 1770, and S. W. Singer’s ©Some Account of the book printed at Oxford in MCCCCLXVIII© (London, 1812, 50 copies for private distribution), a work which the author subsequently called in as far as he was able. In the former the arguments are of a general character, such as that if, as Middleton asserted, the King had not leisure to attend to such matters during Civil War, the archbishop _had_, and that Caxton’s silence counts for nothing in the general obscurity which surrounds the earliest printing presses. The Corsellis story is accepted. Singer is more scientific, as befits the later date, and adduces several of the technical arguments which may still be used.

It is now time to state the present aspect of the dispute, and to ascertain how far the date “1468” is not only dubious but untenable. The arguments against the date may be stated in presumed order of their cogency, with the remarks on the other side which they severally suggest.

1. _The presence of Signatures._

The Jerome presents to our eyes the ordinary signatures to which we are accustomed in fifteenth-century books, that is to say the marks a j, a ij, a iij, a iiij on the recto of each of the four leaves which form the first half of the sections of eight leaves (sixteen pages) of which the book is generally composed. These are placed just below the last letters of the printed page, close under them. Now the earliest known book with a date in which signatures elsewhere occur in this developed form is an ©Expositio Decalogi©, by Johannes Nider, printed at Cologne by Koelhoff in 1472, the next being a Cologne book by F. de Platea in 1474. The argument is that it is extremely unlikely that an isolated printer in a provincial town in England should make such a discovery and advance, and that the next similar book should be a German one four years later[9].

What may be called the common ground of the discussion on this point is well explained in Blades’s ©Books in Chains© (Lond. 1892), pp. 85–122, in a paper on Signatures. He shows that the idea of signatures in manuscripts is as old as books themselves, but that in manuscripts the marks, being in writing and intended for the binder’s eye alone, were naturally, as a rule, at the foot or corner of the page, and often cut off in the process of binding. When printing came in, the obvious difficulty was to print marks so far from the rest of the printed page as to be cut off in binding. This difficulty was met in two ways: either the signatures were _written in_ at the extreme foot (from 1462?), or the signatures were stamped on by hand with single types (from 1473?). Some printers, however, did manage by care to print signatures far from the text (1474 on?). Ultimately in a single case in 1472 and with increasing frequency from 1474 printers found that the essential ugliness of printed signatures close to the page was counterbalanced by the utility and convenience of the change, and our modern system was begun.

Now, it must be constantly remembered that the entire weight of disproof lies with those who dispute the printed date. This is why it is simply amusing to read Blades’s sage words on the subject of this 1472 book with normal printed signatures. He is pledged to renounce the Oxford date, but he finds it awkward that there _is_ an isolated book of 1472 in precisely the same category—with the same want of precedent, the same absence of imitators, the same forlorn appearance. Observe how he deals with it (p. 116 of the book above cited):—“This is a puzzling book, for it is at least two years earlier than any other book so signed. In this city, too. [i. e. Lübeck[10]] many works were issued with MS. signatures with a later date than this. It is dangerous to assert that a book is wrongly dated because you cannot make it fit into a bibliographical theory; but I feel inclined, from the general aspect of the book, to date it as 1482, rather than 1472.” And yet a very high authority on typography assures me that the book is _undoubtedly_ of 1472! What then prevents the tentative and isolated experiment of Cologne from having a similar tentative and isolated forerunner, even at Oxford? We may remember too that in the infancy of printing it was common to detect errors as the book went through the press, and often the printer himself corrected an error with his pen, as in the colophon of the Aegidius (see p. 1). Or a reader would do the same. But it is believed that in no copy of the Jerome is there any attempt to correct or even throw suspicion on the date. There is the date, plain and detailed, and it is allowable to wait for scientific proof before it is abandoned. _A priori_ considerations have force, but they are liable to sudden overthrow.

Clearly the consideration of signatures alone cannot avail to disprove the date of the Jerome. But much more remains.

2. _Signs of progress._

It is said that, if we consider the interval between 1468 and 1479, we shall reasonably expect definite signs of progress. On the contrary, the first three Oxford books are printed with the same type, with similar signatures, with the same sized page and the same number of lines in a column. “In fact,” says Blades in the ©Antiquary©, vol. iii, no. 13, Jan. 1881, in an article on ©The First Printing Press at Oxford©, “if a leaf of one was extracted and inserted in another it would, typographically, excite no remark.” _Natura nihil facit per saltum_, and we are accustomed to apply the idea of evolution and development to every art and trade. It is asserted also that there is no other case of the cessation of a press for over ten years. But cessation of printing for such a time is not unknown. No book was produced at Bamberg between 1462 and 1480, or at Caen between 1480 and 1500, or at Brussels between 1484 and 1500, or at Haarlem for some years after 1486, or at Saragossa after 1475 till 1485? Moreover the only early printing known at Tavistock is two books in 1525 and 1534. The _same type_ and _identical woodcuts_ are found in the two, with an interval of nine years. And where there is cessation, it is obvious that we may be content with fewer signs of advance when work is resumed at the same press with the same type, than if the activity had been continuous, or if the instruments were changed.

But this question of progress is a plain issue. Are there no signs of advance in the two later books compared with the earlier one?

The first book often has an unevenness at the right-hand edge of a column (in 28 pages out of 84). In the other two it is always perfectly even[11]. Again, the Jerome starts printing on sign. a 1, whereas the other two start with a blank leaf, the printing beginning on a 2. Again, in the Jerome there is a peculiar misuse of the capitals H and Q (see p. 241), not found in the following books. And lastly, to omit smaller matters, there is the decided and important fact that whereas in the Jerome each page was printed separately, in the Aegidius and Aretinus two pages were printed at a time.

3. _The Type._

Of the palmary arguments against the date, one still remains. The first Oxford type presents a remarkable similarity to that used by Gerard ten Raem de Bercka (see p. 242), and his only dated book at present known is of 1478. There is certainly a real connexion between the two founts, but we know so extremely little of this printer that it is at present unsafe to base any conclusion on his work. The typographical genealogy of the early printers of the Netherlands and Germany has not yet been fully drawn out, and of the 1478 ©Modus Confitendi© (Hain 11455), which is here in question, only two copies _with the date_ are known, one in the John Rylands (Spencer) library at Manchester and one on the continent. On this point we shall doubtless know more in time, but at present we are bound to suspend our judgment.

4. _Mistakes of date common._

There are two subsidiary considerations left. One is that mistakes of date in colophons are not uncommon. An edition of Aeneas Sylvius’s ©Epistolae© (Cologne, printed by Koelhoff) is dated MCCCCLXVIII, which is stated to be an error for 1478, and an ©Opusculum de componendis versibus© by Mataratius, printed at Venice, is also believed to be erroneously dated 1468 for 1478. Caxton’s edition of Gower’s ©Confessio Amantis© is dated 1493 instead of 1483. I have noticed the following additional errors affecting dates before 1501:—720 for 1720, 1061 for 1601, 1099 for 1499, 1334 for 1734, 1400 for 1490 or 1500, 1444 for 1494, 1461 for 1471, 1461 for 1641, 1462 for 1472, 1472 for 1482.

There is no doubt therefore that a mistake of date in an early book has many parallels, and so far the improbability of it happening in other books is diminished. At the same time one would expect the first printers in a place of learning to be careful enough, even if an initial blunder of this magnitude were committed, to correct it in some copies before issue. It is of course conceivable that the date was deliberately falsified, to avoid expected unpleasant consequences of being found _flagrante delicto_, but this hypothesis may be left to be dealt with when some one maintains it.

5. _Books bound with the Jerome._

There remains a consideration of some weight. Until this century it was common to bind together several books (not merely pamphlets) in one volume. What books have been found in the same binding with the “1468” volume? Four copies of the Jerome are, or are known to have been, bound with several other treatises (see p. 252). One is bound with (and before) the Aretinus of 1479, and it is interesting that though a few leaves of modern paper now separate them there is an offset of the first page of the Aretinus on the last page of the Jerome, showing that the Aretinus was bound with the Jerome before the former was entirely dry. No conclusion however about the date of the Jerome can be drawn from this and whatever presumption of synchronism might be raised is removed by the fact that the well defined stains at the end of the Jerome and beginning of the Aretinus do _not_ run from the one to the other. A second copy was bound with seven others, only two of which are dated, 1478 and (the Oxford Aegidius) 1479: one of the undated is about 1485 (Perottus). A third copy was bound with four preceding treatises, of which the only dated one was the first, the Oxford Aegidius of 1479. A fourth has five pieces with it, the first two of which are of about 1480, the Jerome is third, the fourth is of 1485, the fifth is undated, and the last is of 1486 or 1487.

Clearly we are on very unsafe ground when we base any conclusion on these companion treatises, and our hesitation is not lessened when we notice that the only copy of the ©Vulgaria Terentii© (Oxf., not later than 1483) which is bound with other treatises, occurs after books dated 1488 and 1486, the rest being without a date.

6. _First printing in Europe._

The following list of places and dates will show how far it is likely, if we turn from facts to probabilities, that Oxford should have started printing in 1468. Only the first two towns of each country are given, with the exception of England: and the claim of Oxford is purposely ignored.

1. Germany (Mainz, not after 1454: Strassburg, before 1460: Cologne
began not later than 1466).

2. Italy (Subiaco, 1465: Rome, 1467).

3. Switzerland (Basel, not after 1468: Beromünster, 1470).