(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.

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

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 = 115
16 in. In modern English 10 lines = 1? 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 ? (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 ?b, 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, ?) 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 29
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, ? 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 = 111
16 + in., 10 lines in Pica = 111
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 = 25
16 in., 10 lines of Great Primer = 2? 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-Bi?hop of Canterbury, moved the then King (Hen. the 6th) to u?e all po??ible means for procuring a Printing-Mold (for ?o ’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 De?ign, concluded it could not be brought about without great Secrecy, and a con?iderable Sum of Money given to ?uch Per?on or Per?ons, as would draw off ?ome of the Workmen from Harlein in Holland, where John Cuthenberg had newly invented it, and was him?elf per?onally at Work: ’Twas re?olv’d, that le?s then one Thou?and Marks would not produce the de?ir’d Effect: Towards which Sum, the ?aid Arch-Bi?hop pre?ented the King with Three Hundred Marks. The Money being now prepared, the Management of the De?ign was committed to Mr. Robert Turnour, who then was of the Roabs to the King, and a Per?on mo?t in Favour with Him, of any of his Condition: Mr. Turnour took to his A??i?tance Mr. Caxton, a Citizen of good Abilities, who Trading much into Holland, might be a Creditable Pretence, as well for his going, as ?tay in the Low Countries: Mr. Turnour was in Di?gui?e (his Beard and Hair ?haven quite off) but Mr. Caxton appeared known and publique. They having received the ?aid Sum of One Thou?and Marks, went fir?t to Am?terdam, then to Leyden, not daring to enter Harlein it ?elf; for the Town was very jealous, having impri?oned and apprehended divers Per?ons, who came from other Parts for the ?ame purpo?e: They ?taid till they had ?pent the whole One Thou?and Marks in Gifts and Expences: So as the King was fain to ?end Five Hundred Marks more, Mr. Turnour having written to the King, that he had almo?t done his Work; a Bargain (as he ?aid) being ?truck betwixt him and two Hollanders, for bringing off one of the Work men, who ?hould ?ufficiently di?cover and teach this New Art: At la?t, with much ado, they got off one of the Under-Workmen, who?e Name was Frederick Cor?ells (or rather Cor?ellis), who late one Night ?tole from his Fellows in Di?gui?e, into a Ve??el prepared before for that purpo?e; and ?o the Wind (favouring the De?ign) brought him ?afe to London.

’Twas not thought ?o prudent, to ?et him on Work at London, (but by the Arch-Bi?hops meanes, who had been Vice-Chancellor, and afterwards Chancellor of the Univer?ity of Oxon) Cor?ellis was carryed with a Guard to Oxon; which Guard con?tantly watch’d, to prevent Cor?ellis from any po??ible Escape, till he had made good his Promi?e, in teaching how to Print: So that at Oxford Printing was fir?t ?et 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 ?elf, calling her City, Urbem Maguntinam Artis TipographicÆ Inventricem primam, though ’tis known to be otherwi?e, 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 ?et up for him?elf at Mentz.

This Pre?s at Oxon was at lea?t ten years before there was any Printing in Europe (except at Harlein, and Mentz) where al?o it was but new born. This Pre?s at Oxford, was afterwards found inconvenient, to be the ?ole Printing-place of England, as being too far from London, and the Sea: Whereupon the King ?et up a Pre?s at St. Albans, and another in the Abby of We?tminster, where they Printed ?everal Bookes of Divinity and Phy?ick, (for the King, for Rea?ons be?t known to him?elf and Council) permitted then no Law-Books to be Printed; nor did any Printer exerci?e that ART, but onely ?uch as were the Kings ?worn Servants; the King him?elf having the Price and Emolument for Printing Books.

Printing thus brought into England, was mo?t Graciou?ly received by the King, and mo?t cordially entertained by the Church, the Printers having the Honour to be ?worn the King’s Servants, and the Favour to Lodge in the very Bo?ome of the Church; as in We?tmin?ter, 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 vit ad meliorem commigratus Anno D 1674 Die Octobris 19^o.

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.

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.

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.

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).

4. France (Paris, 1470: Lyon, not after 1473).

5. Netherlands (Utrecht, about 1471–3: Alost, 1473).

6. Austro-Hungary (Buda-Pesth, 1473: Trient, 1475).

7. Spain (Valencia, 1474: Saragossa, 1475).

8. England (Westminster, 1477: Oxford, 1478: St. Alban’s, 1480 [1479?]: London, 1480).

9. Denmark (Odensee, 1482: Schleswig, 1486).

10. Sweden (Stockholm, 1483: Wadsten, 1495).

11. Portugal (Lisbon, 1489: Leiria, 1492).

12. Montenegro (Cettinje, 1494).

---

It is hoped that the above summary statement of the arguments for and against the date of the Jerome will serve to make the present position of the question clear. What general conclusion can be arrived at before further facts are discovered? Caxton, who began to print in England in 1477, nowhere claims to have introduced printing into England. Is it still conceivable that Oxford preceded Westminster by nine years? The answer is that it is still conceivable, but not probable. The ground has been slowly and surely giving way beneath the defenders of the Oxford date, in proportion to the advance of our knowledge of early printing, and all that can be said is that it has not yet entirely slipped away. All the new contributions to the argument and all the chief bibliographers are against it, while no fresh defending forces are in sight. But it is still allowable to assert that the destructive arguments, even if we admit their cumulative cogency, do not at the present time amount to proof.

In the venerable building at the north-east corner of St. Mary’s Church at Oxford—the old House of Congregation, which, though once the cradle of the University,

there is still a single tenant, feebly holding his ground and refusing to be evicted. He wears the form of King Alfred and bears a legend beneath, telling us boldly that he founded the University^[12]. The clamour of disputation never reaches that silent room, the changes of centuries have disregarded it, and it remains the one place where a belief which cast a lustre of royalty over early Oxford, and to this day gives primacy to one of the oldest colleges, is still maintained without contradiction. The figure neither utters nor listens to argument: it asserts and chooses to assert. But the spirit of the age is at the door: St. Mary’s is swathed in scaffolding: the sounds of trowel and saw penetrate through the dim glass and the cobwebs and all things become new. It is probable that the opening years of the twentieth century will see the age-worn bust of Alfred and the copy of the Oxford Jerome in the University archives consigned to a common flame as Impostors in an age of light.

1. British Museum. Perfect. Given by the Earl of Oxford on 10 Mar. 1729
30 to James West, at whose sale in 1773 it probably passed to M. C. Tutet: then in the King’s Library, which passed in 1829 to the British Museum, where it bore the mark 8. D. 5; now 167. b. 26.

2. Bodleian. Wanting e 10, a blank leaf. One page (b 7^r) is printed askew, in this copy only. Owned in 1582 by William Wright: then Bp. Juxon’s, who gave it on 31 July 1657 to Bp. Barlow, among whose books it passed to the Bodleian in 1693: where it has been successively marked A. 19. 6 Linc., Auct. Q. 1. 5. 18, Auct. Q. 1. 6. 12 and Auct. R. supra 13.

3. All Souls College, Oxford. Wanting a 4, a 5. Given by Benj. Buckler in 1756: bound in the 18th cent. with the Aretinus (see p. 253). Marked NN. 10. 1, now LL. 10. 17.

4. Oriel College, Oxford. Perfect. Originally this was bound 4th in a volume containing Augustinus de dignitate sacerdotum: Meditationes Bernardi: Exempla Scripturae, Paris, 1478: the Jerome: Comm. Petri de Osoma in symbolum Quicunque vult, Paris: the Aegidius, Oxf. 1479: Ars bene moriendi: and Hugonis Speculum ecclesiae. Owned by Edmund Lyster in the 16th cent. The present binding is of the 18th century: but there are old manuscript signatures throughout the volume.

5. Oxford University Archives. Perfect. Owned by John Rhodes in 1664: given by Moses Pit, a London bookseller, 31 Jan. 1679
80. Bound with the Casus breves of Johannes Andreas (n. d.).

6. Cambridge University Library. Wanting e 10, a blank leaf. This copy has a painting of St. Jerome, a coloured capital and border, &c., and a coat of arms. It bears a George I bookplate dated 1713. Marked C. 5. 1, and now AB. 5. 18.

7. John Rylands Library, Manchester. Perfect. Bought for the Spencer Library for £150: bound by C. Lewis: marked 17320, or E. 237: transferred to Manchester with the whole Spencer Library.

8. The Huth Library.

9. The Earl of Pembroke’s Library.

10. Sir Henry Dryden’s Library. Wanting e 10, a blank leaf. In original binding, part of a volume containing Joh. Sulp. Verulanus de Octo partibus orationis: Aug. Senensis de loquendi regulis: the Jerome: Alb. de Ferrariis de horis canonicis, 1485: Kamintus on the pestilence: and two leaves of a Prognostication of 1486 or 1487.

11. Paris National Library. Bought by Lord Blandford in Feb. 1812 for £91: in the White Knights sale sold for £28.

12. A copy recently sold to an American. Perfect. It was originally in an Oxford contemporary binding with the Oxford Aegidius, 1479: Mich. de Hungaria’s Tredecim Sermones: “Oxoniensis cuiusdam exercitationes”: Adelard of Bath’s Quaestt. naturales: the Jerome was last. Owned by A. Hilton in the 15th cent.

In 1862 a copy in F. S. Ellis’s catalogue (p. 14, no. 957) was priced £110.

Fragments:—Leaves a 2, a 7, a 8, b 4, c 1, c 3, e 3, e 6–8 are in the Bodleian.

2. Aretinus (1479, see p. 1).

The reasons for placing this book second are given above at pp. 241–2: if they are regarded as sufficient, we must take “1479” in the Aegidius as what we should call 1480, which is in agreement with the ordinary usage of the time and which gains a slight probability, in that the printing would have been finished on a Sunday, if the year were taken as 1478
9. All copies are poorly printed. It was quite fitting that the first book printed at Oxford should be theological and the second the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle.

1. British Museum. Wanting a 1, a blank leaf. In this copy alone there is a director for the large O of Omnis on b 1^r. Owned by Will. Davis in 1792: then in the Grenville Library: marked “7. p. 115. 1,” 8. D. 5, 163. B. 2, G. 7930, and now C. 2. a. 7. Bound with it is a manuscript translation into Latin of Aristotle’s Œconomica and Politics, dedicated to Humphrey Duke of Gloucester.

2. Bodleian. Perfect. In this copy at o 2^r and o 2^v is a c printed in the margin, apparently meaning “cancel,” since the recto is printed askew. Manuscript notes show that the book, which is in contemporary binding, was at first in the hands of an Oxford student (?) who received pittance from the Prior of Oseney. Then “Codex Michaelis Canni.” Owned by John Selden, among whose books it came to the Library in 1659. Marked 8^o A. 17 Art. Seld., Auct. Q. 1. 5. 17, Auct. R. supr. 8, and now S. Selden e. 2.

3. All Souls College, Oxford. Perfect. Bound with the Jerome (see p. 252).

4. Norwich Cathedral Library.

5. John Rylands Library, Manchester. Imperfect, wanting a 1, a blank leaf. Made up out of two copies, the Alchorne and the Freeling. Bound by C. Lewis: marked 15969 or G. 237: transferred as the Jerome.

6. The Earl of Pembroke’s Library.

7. Chetham Library at Manchester. Wants a 1 and two leaves in sign. k.

8. Lord Ashburnham.

Anthony Askew possessed a copy (Sale catal. 1775, no. 998, sold for £5 5s. to Dent), and an imperfect one occurred in the Bright sale in 1845 (no. 180), and fetched £5 15s.

Fragments:—The Bodleian possesses fragments comprising l 3, l 6–8, v 3, v 6, v 7, v 8: Queen’s College, Oxford, possesses m 8, with some variations of reading: and i 4 was in 1888 in the possession of F. J. H. Jenkinson, Esq., at Cambridge.

3. Aegidius (1479
80?, see p. 1).

In this work the colophon is printed in red, the only instance of colour printing in the early Oxford press. The book is for some reason rarer than the two which precede. It is noticeable that in every known copy the bad grammar of the printed colophon was corrected in red ink before it left the office.

1. Bodleian. Perfect. Owned by Robert Burton, the author of the Anatomy of Melancholy, in 1601. Originally bound first in a volume also containing De viginti preceptis elegantiarum, Bois-le-duc, 1487: Perotti grammatica: Bonaventurae Soliloquium. Marked 4^o A. 28 Th., then Auct. Q. 1. 5. 16, then separately bound as Auct. R. supra 4.

2. Oriel College Library. Perfect. See the Jerome, no. 4.

3. John Rylands Library, Manchester. Wanting a 1 and c 8, blank leaves and a 8. Purchased by Lord Spencer: once part of the volume containing the Jerome no. 12.

A copy was in the Harleian Library (Catal. vol. 3, no. 6674).

4. Cicero, Pro Milone (1480?, see p. 2).

This is a puzzling book. The type so closely resembles Oxford type that every bibliographer has accepted it provisionally as identical. Yet it exhibits spaced type, it uses / for a comma (both points unique in Oxford printing), and the sections are made up in sixes. It is also by many years the first classic printed in England, the next being a Terence in 1497. The volume probably consisted of a—e in sixes, allowing a leaf blank at the beginning: perhaps section e was in eight. The first half of each section bears signatures. The book was clearly made up of half quarto sheets, three to each section. Mr. Blades was of opinion that the type was more worn than that of the Ales: and Mr. E. G. Duff thinks that the spacing and other peculiarities point to a later date than 1480.

Fragments known:—b 3–4, c 3–4 are in the Bodleian (Auct. R. supra 3), having been presented by Sir William H. Cope in 1872. They were fly leaves in a volume containing five treatises dated from 1491 to 1505, probably bound in Oxford for William Cope (d. 1513) who lived near Banbury. Also c 1–2, 5–6 are in Merton College Library, Oxford, among some loose printed fragments.

5. Latin Grammar (1481?, see p. 2).

This is only known from two leaves in the British Museum, acquired in 1872 or late in 1871, which were found in the binding of a book, which in the sixteenth cent. belonged to Nicholas Browere. It is a Latin grammar in English, the examples of which connect its composition with Oxford (e. g. “I goo to grammer att Oxforde Incumbo grammatice Oxonij,” “Y go to Oxforde Eo Oxonium vel ad Oxonium.”) From letters in the Athenaeum, 4 and 11 Nov. 1871, and notes in the book, it appears that the author might be John Anwykyll (see p. 257) and that it is probably not by Holt or Stanbridge. The chain lines run across the page: but it is at present impossible to say whether the sections were in sixes or eights. Marked C. 33. i. 10.

6. Ales (1481, see p. 2).

The woodcut border which is found in some copies of the Ales and Latteburius is the earliest found in English printing, though Caxton uses woodcut engravings in the text (for the first time) in the same year. It consists of birds and flowers grouped on long winding stems, the four pieces which form the border measuring in all not less than 11¼ × 7¾ in. (no quite intact copy is known, the binder’s ruthless knife invariably removing a portion). A full-size reproduction of it is given in E. G. Duff’s Facsimiles of English types (Lond. 1895).

1. British Museum. Without border. Wanting a 4, a 5. Re-bound lately, but with the original sides. Owned by William Wodebrigge, sub-prior of Butleigh, co. Suffolk: then by John Warner: then by Cranmer: then by lord Lumley. In the Old Royal Library: once 520. 9. 12, now C. 38. g. 1.

2. Bodleian. Without border. Perfect: in original Oxford binding, plain sides. Owned by Roger Balkwell in the 15th cent. Marked A. 5. 4 Art., then C. 7. 15 Art., now Auct. R. supra 10.

3. Oxford—Balliol.

4. Oxford—Brasenose. Without border. On vellum. Imperfect, wanting 13 leaves. In contemporary Oxford binding, with stamped sides. Owned by—Claxton and Patrick Grante.

5, 6. Oxford—Magdalen. Two copies, one imperfect, both with border. In J. E. T. Rogers’s History of Prices is a note that Magdalen purchased a copy of this book in 1481 for 33s. 4d.

7. Oxford—New College.

8. Oxford—St. John’s (not in Oriel, as has been stated).

9. Oxford—Trinity.

10. Oxford—Worcester. Without border. Imperfect, wanting a i (blank), k 2, y 3. Given to Gloucester Hall by Clement Barksdale.

11. Cambridge University Library. With border in three places, a 2, h 1, z 1. Perfect. Marked P*. 9. 15.

12. Do. Without border. Wanting a 1 (blank). Marked AB. 10. 9: with George I’s bookplate.

13. John Rylands Library, Manchester. With border in three places, a 2, h 1 and z 1. Wanting three leaves, a 1, g 6, y 8, all blank. Marked D. 237, E. 237, 19944, in the Spencer Library.

14. Durham Cathedral Library. Without border.

15. Dulwich College Library: bound with Lettou’s edition of Ant. Andreae, 1480.

16. Lincoln Cathedral Library.

Fragments:—In the Bodleian r 6 and parts of C 1, E 6: in Merton College, Oxford, two leaves (one is i 7): in Corpus Christi College, Oxford, part of one leaf: in the Cambridge University Library, parts of E 1 and other fragments: in the British Museum (MS. Harl. 5929, no. 36: last leaf with colophon and date): at Trinity College, Cambridge.

7. Latteburius (1482, see p. 2).

Some copies of this work also bear the engraved border noticed on p. 254. Some copies have a distinct variation on sign. “kk” (= K) 7^v, thus

Clearly the type was altered because s’m is a fair contraction when meaning “according to,” but not properly used when meaning “second.” See plate III.

1. British Museum. With border. Perfect. In the original stamped leather binding. Owned by Simon Foderby in the 15th century: by Christopher Viscount Castlecomer, and W. F. (?) Hunter, 1824. Marked 1215. k. 1, 1215. k. 6, 45. b. 30. 135, now C. 37. h. 10.

2. Bodleian. With border. Perfect. Owned by John Cuthbertson, priest, and Robert Bonwick. Marked L. 1. 3 Th., L. 7. 2 Th., Auct. Q. 1. 2. 8, now Auct. R. supra 11.

3. Oxford—All Souls. Without border. On vellum. Perfect, except that part of O 6 (blank) is gone. Given by Richard Gavent formerly Fellow of the College. The binding is contemporary Oxford stamped leather. This copy is remarkable from the fact that four names, apparently of parchment-sellers, occur as signing certain leaves: on 54 leaves (representing 108) F. H.: on 31, Hawkyns or Haukins: on 8, Alison: on 3, J. Alexander (Alysaunder): probably some other signings are cut off. A comparison of two sets of similar markings in other books almost establishes the fact that these names do not represent revisers of the printing, but dimply the owners of the parchment. Sometimes “8 ff,” and once “8 ff alison,” occur, showing that the pieces were sold in bundles of eight (?). Marked P. 2. 18, then QQ. 8. 11.

4. Oxford—Corpus Christi College. With border. Wanting almost all of a 1, L 8, O 6 blank leaves. In contemporary binding. Marked X. P. iv. 4, then ?. 18. 3.

5. Oxford—New College.

6, 7. Cambridge University Library. Both with border. One perfect (E. 4. 1), in contemporary binding of stamped leather. Given by Albanus Butler to Richard Butler, rector of Aston-le-Walls (co. Northants) 23 June 1603. The other, AB. 7. 27, only wants a 1 (blank leaf); with a George I bookplate.

8. Cambridge—Jesus College. With border.

9. Cambridge—Trinity College. Perfect (?). Marked vi^d. 8. 9 (described in Sinker’s Catalogue, 1876).

10. John Rylands Library at Manchester. With border. Wanting only a 1 (blank leaf). Owned by “Henri Joliff.” Marked 16741 or E. 237.

11. Lambeth Library.

12. Westminster Chapter Library. On vellum.

13. Stonyhurst Library. Wanting only three blank leaves.

14. T. Etherington Cooke, Esq., residing in Glasgow. Perfect. With border. In original binding.

15. Brussels Library.

Copies occurred in the Sams sale (185-, £17 5s., one leaf in manuscript): Bateman sale (1893: lot 1176): Payne and Foss (1848: art. 3120, £8 8s.): Gardiner sale (£9 12s.): Towneley sale (1883, with border, wanting O 6, and also L 1 and L 8, H 3 and H 6 occurring in their stead: this copy was in Quaritch’s Rough List. 99, no. 572, Sept. 1889, £32 10s.): B. H. Bright sale 1845, lot 3364 (£7 7s., with another book).

Fragments known:—Lord Robartes (on vellum, part of one leaf, O 3); Trinity College, Cambridge; Queen’s College, Oxford (on vellum; l 3, l 5, B 4, B 5, kk 5, kk 6); King’s College, Cambridge; Emmanuel College, Cambridge (on vellum, two half leaves, in q. 4. 62); Wadham College, Oxford (f 2, f 3, f 6, f 7); British Museum (one leaf, i 8, in 618. l. 18, and one leaf on vellum in Harl. MS. 5977. fol. 44); S. Sandars, Esq. (one leaf); New College, Oxford (four leaves, H 2, H 7, g 3, p 4: and on vellum four leaves, D 2–3, &c.); Bodleian (I 3, I 5, kk 2, kk 7, M 2, b 2–5; C 7–8 on vellum); Brasenose College, Oxford (on vellum, I 6); Corpus Christi College, Oxford (four leaves: and two leaves on vellum).

Four of the chief English grammarians of the 16th century were connected with Magdalen College Grammar School at Oxford. The first master was John Anwykyll (1481?-87); the first usher and second master was John Stanbridge (1481?-88, 1488–94, d. 1510); John Holte, the author of the Lac Puerorum, was master; and Robert Whittington was Stanbridge’s pupil at the school. Dean Colet, William Lily and Cardinal Wolsey were also members of Magdalen (see Bloxam’s Register of Magdalen College, iii., ad init.). Of the Latin Grammar in Latin which is now before us and has been assigned with probability by Bradshaw to Anwykyll, no complete copy is known, but it was reprinted at Deventer in 1489. The Vulgaria Terentii occurs also separately, and consists of sentences from Terence with English translation.

There appear to be two different editions of this Grammar (not Vulgaria), for it can be shown that the Cambridge fragments are not of the same edition as the Bodleian book. Not only, for instance, are the contents of sign. h 3 in each entirely different, but the signatures themselves are in different type, and in the Corpus (Cambridge) fragment the signature is n 3, and yet it belongs to the Compendium and not the Vulgaria. The height of the printed page also varies considerably, and the width of the Vulgaria pages is less than that of the Grammar. The subject needs further investigation.

1. London—British Museum, Vulgaria Terentii only, with written date at end 5 Jan. 1500/1. Marked C. 33. i. 3.

2. Oxford—Bodleian. A fragment containing signn. fg⁸hk⁶lm⁸ and (Vulgaria) n-q⁸. Sign. i probably contained the Tertia pars grammaticae. With the Condover Hall (Cholmondeley) bookplate: bought by the Bodleian from Quaritch in 1892: in whose Rough List, no. 124, May 1892, it is priced £100. Now marked Inc. e. E 2 1483
1.

3. Oxford—Bodleian. The Vulgaria only, bound first in a volume containing also P. P. Vergerii de ingenuis moribus liber (Louvain, Joh. de Westphalia, n. d.), and Adelardi Quaestiones (n. pl. or d.). The following interesting inscription is in it:—“1483. Frater Johannes grene emit hunc librum OxoÑ de elemosinis amicorum suorum.” In plain 15th cent. binding. Owned also by Henry Strathyn at Bedford, John Uncle, Robert Hunter (all 16th cent.). Bought by the Bodleian at the T. Thomson sale Jan. 1866 (lot 1068) for £36. Marked Auct. R. supra 2.

4. Cambridge—University Library. The Vulgaria only. Bound originally in a volume containing Perotti Erudimenta Grammatices (Par. 1488): Opusculum quintu-pertitum grammaticale (Gouda, 1486); Ars Epistolandi Jac. P(ublicii) (n. pl. or d.); the Vulgaria; Matheoli Perusini tractatus de memoria (n. pl. or d.). Marked AB. 5. 16. 4.

5. John Rylands Library, Manchester. The Vulgaria only.

Small Fragments known:—Cambridge University Library (two leaves, h 3, and [without sign.] the beginning of the 3rd part): Trinity College Library, Cambridge (one leaf, d 1, of the same edition as the University Library fragments). Photographs of these fragments are in the Bodleian. The Rev. W. D. Macray states in his Annals of the Bodleian (2nd ed., 1890, p. 159, note) that Bradshaw found two leaves at Corpus and two at St. John’s (both Cambridge), but these really belong to the Alexander (p. 260). Four leaves are in the library of Lord Dillon at Ditchley, Oxfordshire, discovered by Mr. Macray in 1867.

This work by Richard Rolle of Hampole (d. 1349) was also printed at Paris in 1510 and at Cologne in 1536. Noticed in J. Ph. Berjeau’s Bibliophile, no. 24 (Dec. 1863), p. 146.

1. Cambridge University Library. Wants a 1 and l 4 (both blank: AB. 4. 31, with a George I bookplate).

2. Cambridge University Library. Wants l 4 (H* 9. 51. 5).

3. John Rylands Library, Manchester, purchased in 1893 from the Cambridge University Library. Wants almost all a 1 (F* 5. 26. 3, when at Cambridge).

Fragments:—Some leaves from the Babington sale (1889) are in the Library of St. John’s College, Cambridge.

10. Logic (1483?, see p. 3).

There is a Registrum cartarum at the end of this book, on sign. D d 8^r. Diagrams are on A 4^r, A 5^v, B 6^v, cf. C c 2^r.

1. New College, Oxford. Wanting nearly all a 1 (blank leaf). Owned by John Utting. Marked Auct. V. 2. 18.

2. Merton College, Oxford. Wanting a 1 (blank), B 3, B 4. Marked D. 6. 13 Art., D. 8. 17 Art., then 19. E. 18.

Fragments:—Bodleian (one leaf, Q 2: marked Auct. R. supra 16): Cambridge University Library: Trinity College, Cambridge (one leaf, 26 half leaves): St. John’s College, Cambridge (O 1, O 2, O 5, O 6): Lambeth Library (four leaves).

11. Lyndewoode (1483?, see p. 3).

This contains a large wood engraving (on sign. a 1^v) of Jacobus de Voragine writing the Golden Legend, seated at his desk beneath a canopy; on each side are two trees, the foliage of which, as in the Festial, is represented by nearly horizontal lines in rude style. Size 4? × 7? in., to outer bounding lines. See plate IV.

1. British Museum. Wanting aa 1 and either S 10 or (the second) aa 1 (both blank). Marked 497. i. 1, then C. 37. l. 2. In this copy f 1, f 2, f 7, f 8, all g, h and i, k 1, k 2 have been re-set, compared with the other two, which are probably the earlier issue. As a test, in this copy the catchword on sign. f 1^r is under quamuis, but in nos. 2 and 3 under glosa, as is usual.

2. British Museum. Wanting S 10 (blank); and a duplicate of f 3, f 6 is placed after t 3. Owned by Tho. Chandler, dean of Hereford March 1481
2 to 1490, then by James Scudamour, who gave it to Richard Tomson in 1595. Marked 711. i. 15, and 41. 11. 6. 164: now C. 37. l. 7. The sides of the binding are old stamped leather.

3. British Museum. Wanting a 1, R 1, R 8, cc 3, cc 6, and all dd. Owned by Nicholas Peir(ce?), John Harrison (?), and William Graves who gave it to the Museum. Marked 497. i. 2.

4. Oxford, Bodleian. Perfect. In original binding of stamped leather, re-backed. Marked L. 4. 8 Jur., then Auct. Q. 1. 1. 4, then Auct. R. supra 12, now Inc. b. E 2. 1485
1.

5. Oxford, All Souls. Perfect. Marked A. 1. 29, C. 3. 12, D. 11. 12, now I. 11. 10. Owned by Thomas Windsor in 1634, and bp. Nathaniel Crewe.

6. Oxford, New College. (“Auct. V. 12”.)

7. Oxford, Queen’s College.

8. Cambridge University Library. Wanting aa 1 (nearly all), y 4, y 5. With a George I bookplate, 1715. Marked B. 1. 5, now AB 1. 19.

9. —— 2nd copy. Wanting A 2, S. 10, dd 1, dd 10. Marked L. 3. 38, now Q. 2. 14.

10. Cambridge, Clare College.

11. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College.

12. Cambridge, King’s College.

13. Cambridge, St. John’s College. On vellum.

14. John Rylands Library, Manchester: bought from the late Rev. J. E. Millard by Lord Spencer. Wanting a 1, S 10, aa 1, dd 10. This had been in the Savile sale (1862), lot 497.

15. Edinburgh, Advocates’ Library.

16. Durham Cathedral Library.

17. Glasgow, Free Church College Library.

18. E. Gordon Duff, Esq.: bought at a London sale for £12 15s.: wanting a 1, S 10, aa 1.

19. Lord Crawford.

20. National Library at Paris. On vellum.

A copy occurred in the Bateman sale (1893), lot 1190.

Fragments known:—Bodleian (part of D 2: marked Auct R. supra 17: now Inc. c. E 7. 1); Jesus College, Oxford (part of a leaf of index): Mr. E. G. Duff possesses a Valerius Maximus of 1519, in a Cambridge binding (about 1520), the boards of which are entirely made up of the Oxford Lyndewoode; from the Hailstone Library.

? The following book was discovered since sheet B was printed off.

12. Augustine (1483?).

Augustine, St. [Sign. a 2^r:—] Excitatio fidelis anime ad ele?"mosinam faciendam A beato Au?"gustino conscripta.

[Oxford, about 1483]: (eight) sm. 4^o: pp. [16], sign. a⁸: sign. a 3^r beg. Non enim. Contents:—sign. a 2-a 8^r, the sermon.

This piece of Oxford printing was discovered in the spring of 1891 in the British Museum. It was originally bound with Gerson’s De modo vivendi (Joh. de Westphalia, n. d.), the Cordiale de quattuor novissimis (Delft, 1482), Albertanus de arte loquendi, 1484, Adelardi QuÆstiones naturales, and the Historia septem sapientum. Marked 702. d. 34, now C. 38. f. 37: it had been part of lot 4912 in the Colbert sale. A facsimile is given in E. G. Duff’s Early printed books (Lond. 1893).

The computation of the date by Olympiads is very uncommon, in early printed books: it is however the most ancient classical method. Each Olympiad is a period of four years, and the first is computed to have commenced in July, B. C. 776: so that July A. D. 1 corresponded with the beginning of Olympiad 195. The computation ceased for practical purposes in A. D. 395, and the present revival is of an artificial kind, in which the expression “every fifth year,” which by a Greek could be applied to an Olympiad (?e?taet????), was taken in its ordinary sense and used for computation. Thus “in the 297th Olympiad from the birth of Christ” was in the present book taken to represent (297 × 5 =) A. D. 1485. A similar use is found in the 1472 (Venice) edition of the Epigrams of Ausonius^[13]. But the 1494 (Parma) edition of the Declamations of Quintilian contains a futile attempt to use the ancient method, for it was printed “Olympiade quingentesima sexagesima octaua qui est annus a salute christiana M.cccc.xciiii quinto non. Iul.”, whereas it would properly have been 1493. And M. A. Giry (Manuel de Diplomatique, 1894, p. 96) records an unintelligible attempt to use this computation in a deed of 1102.

1. Oxford, Corpus Christi College. Perfect. Owned by John Lacy, and Herbert Randolph (1724). Marked ? P. 3. 12, then ?. 1. 14.

2. Oxford, Wadham College.

3. John Rylands Library, Manchester. Perfect. Marked in the Spencer Library S. 5. 3, and 15835 (G. 237).

Fragments:—Bodleian (parts of i 4, i 6, now Auct. R. supra 9): Corpus Christi College, Oxford (parts of l 2 and l 7): St. John’s College Library, Oxford (one leaf): Trin. Coll. Camb. (one leaf of sign. d): Westminster Abbey Library (four leaves of sign. k).

14. Alexander (1485?, see p. 4).

There are editions of the Textus Alexandri by Pynson in 1505, 1513, 1516 and by Wynkin de Worde, 1503.

Fragments known:—St. John’s College, Cambridge (c 2 and c 3 [?]): Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (two leaves, n 3 and one unsigned; probably part of the Alexander).

15. Festiall (1486
7, see p. 4).

Printed in “1486,” “on the day aftir Seint Edward the kyng”: which would seem to be March 19, 1486
7. This book is distinguished by the occurrence of many woodcut engravings, and by the use of a woodcut capital G (52 times). This latter is the only woodcut letter used in the early Oxford Press (see Bradshaw in the Communications of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, iii. 136). In the same paper (p. 138) Bradshaw suggests that the eleven large cuts were perhaps intended for an edition of the Golden Legend, and that the five smaller ones belong to a lost Oxford Primer on Horae. The text is nearer to that of Caxton’s second issue (1491) than of his first (1483). The two sets of woodcuts are as follows:—

Larger kind (general size, about 4½ × 4½–5½ in.).
1.	() 1r.	Woodcut of the Crucifixion, laid sideways.
2.	() iv.	Woodcut of St. Christopher bearing Christ, beneath a canopy.
3.	h 5v.	Bishop under canopy, with two trees (facsimile in Dibdin’s Ædes AlthorpianÆ).
4.	i 5v.	Martyrdom of St. Thomas.
5.	k 7r.	Stoning of St. Stephen (facsimile in Dibdin).
6.	l 2r.	St. John the Evangelist (?) with cup and palm-branch, between two figures.
7.	l 6r.	Murder of the Innocents.
8.	l 8v.	Murder of Thomas a Becket.
9.	m 5v.	The Circumcision.
10.	n 6r.	The Conversion of St. Paul.
11.	o 7v.	The Annunciation.
Smaller kind (general size, about 2½ × 1½ in.).
12.	c 4v.	Crucifixion.
	d 8v.	Space for woodcut.
	e 2v.	Do. ?
13.	e 3r.	Pentecost.
	e 5r.	Do., the same woodcut.
14.	f 2v.	The Trinity.
15.	h 1r.	St. Andrew with his cross, with a book and trees.
16.	h 1r.	St. Andrew with his cross.

The prints are rude in execution, the foliage of trees being generally indicated simply by horizontal lines (as in a French Ortus Sanitatis of about 1485). The shoes, sword-scabbards, and the like are often entirely black, showing that the cuts were intended to be coloured by hand. They appear to be entirely unknown elsewhere. See plate V.

1. Bodleian. Imperfect. Wanting all (), c 3, c 4, g 4, k 4, k 5, o 4, o 5, r 5, s 3, s 4, s 5, s 6, z 1, z 3, z 4. Marked Auct. R. supra 5. The variations of signn. h and i show that this is a later issue than no. 2. Owned by William Little.

2. Bodleian. Imperfect. Wanting all (), a-f, g 1, g 2, h 1, i 6, k 1–3, k 6–8, l 3, l 6, l 8, o 3, p 6, r 4–6, t 1, t 6, x 1, x 2, x 7, x 8, y, z: but y 2, y 5 are inserted from Hearne’s fragments. This was William Herbert’s copy: no. 730 in the Utterson sale 1852, where it was bought by the Bodleian for £6 10s.: marked Auct. R. supra 7.

3. John Rylands Library, Manchester. Wanting a 1, a 2 (supplied in manuscript), z 4. Owned by Ratcliffe (sale, no. 1430, £3 2s.), then Alchorne, then Johnes. No. 15409 (E. 237) in the Spencer Library. Dibdin’s collation is very faulty. Signn. h, i are of the later kind.

4. Lambeth Library. Wants z 4 (blank). The variations in signn. h, i are of the later type. Once archbp. Tenison’s copy. Marked once lxiii. 1. 19, now 38. 2. 23. f.

A copy occurred for sale in Rodd’s 1831 catalogue, priced £6 6s.

Fragments:—British Museum (one leaf, y 3, in MS. Harl. 5919, no. 139): Wadham College, Oxford (1½ leaves): Brasenose College, Oxford (several leaves): parts of two leaves (q 6 and another) were offered by A. Iredale, bookseller of Torquay (catal. 31, Oct. 1887, no. 1) for 21s.

The Printing Press at Oxford ceases its work suddenly in 1486
7, and there is no reason for this stop at present known. The printing at St. Alban’s ceased at about the same time. It has been suggested that Rood left Oxford for Cologne, where a Theodericus printed books in 1485 and 1486 in a type similar to that of the Ales and Latteburius. In this case Hunt may have continued for a short time alone, and then relinquished the work.