which is generally given as the round number, might be very commodiously seated within this Amphitheatre. The seats are of a very convenient height, from 18 to 22 inches: they are solid, square, or rather parallelogramic blocks of stone of immense size, and were probably covered for the accommodation of the higher ranks of people. I measured four of the stones in the second row of arcades, and found several upwards of 17 feet in length; breadth and thickness proportional. They are laid without the smallest quantity of cement, and the whole construction is simple to a degree that is almost inconceivable; yet in some places the Junction is scarcely perceptible, but the whole wall appears, as it were, one solid block, with the fissures almost obliterated. The arches are turned of solid wedge-shaped blocks, placed side by side, and thus the incumbent weight enormous as it was, only pressed the wedges closer together. Instead of cement, they fastened the stones with large cramps of iron, four or five inches broad, and two inches deep; but though they rejected the use of mortar from those parts of the building which were exposed to the open air, yet in the internal parts a great quantity is found, but not of that friable kind in use at this day, and which crumbles to dust between the fingers. The Roman mortar of this building is as hard as the stone itself, and seems to be composed of pieces of marble, pulverised stones, all connected by a gluten, and now scarcely to be broken with a hammer. Large broad, flat surfaces, accurately fitted to each other, and touching exactly in all points, supported enormous weights in ancient building; and in a late addition to an ancient work at the Pont du Garde, (another glorious remain of ancient grandeur) I remarked, that, to occupy the same surface in similar buildings, where the ancients made use of two stones, the moderns employ nine, and sometimes twelve. Nothing but the extreme difficulty, perhaps, of taking such a pile to pieces, has preserved it to the present time, considering the number of rude shocks it has undergone from savage hands. Marks of fire appear in several parts of the building. The ornaments of this building are various; among these one of the most conspicuous is the Roman eagle; and on several of the pillars of the Amphitheatre are sculptured those species, which howsoever indelicate in modern times, one would almost be led to conjecture, were intended, at least in many instances, rather as symbols of population and the strength of a state. All the ornaments are greatly mutilated, and the Roman eagles are all decapitated. The savage conquerors that

triumphed over the Roman power, insulted the vanquished by disgracing and destroying their arms.-I now take my leave, shortly to quit the shores of the Mediterranean, and depart for Italy.

Mar. 22, 1778.
1778, May.

Yours, &c.

XLVII. On the date of a book said to have been printed in 1454. IT has been affirmed by contemporary writers, and is now generally agreed to (except by some Dutchmen too much prejudiced in favour of their country) that the art of printing in Europe was first attempted by certain persons at Mentz,* between the years 1440 and 1450, and some few years after, during which time many fruitless trials were made, and perfected in that city, by John Fust and Peter Schoeffer de Gernsheim. The first book we meet with printed by them, with separate metal types, that has a date to it, is the Psalmorum Codex, which came from their press in 1457: but one, with a supposed earlier date, hav ing lately been taken notice of by the learned, I beg leave on that account to make a few remarks on it.

This book, which was in the possession of the late Rev.

* John Gensfleisch, surnamed Guttemberg, John Fust, and John Meydenbach. It was long a controverted question, whether Guttemberg or Fust was the inventor of that art, the first ideas of which, it is supposed, were conceived about the year 1440, till happily the original instrument was found, whereby it appears, that the former only associated the others with him for the sake of their purses, he not being able to succeed without, on account of the great expences attending the cutting of the blocks of wood, which, after they were once printed from, became entirely useless for any other work. This instrument, which is dated Nov. 6, 1455, is decisive in favour of Guttemberg. But the honour of the discovery of single types, made of metal, is ascribed to Fust, wherein he received great assistance from his servant Peter Schoeffer, who devised the puncheons, matrices, and moulds, for casting them, on which account he was taken into partnership by his master, after his (Fust's) quarrel with Guttemberg, and their separation in 1455. Those who have asserted that Fust was the first inventor of printing, have given for a reason, that they have never seen any book with Guttemberg's name to it; without considering, that their first essays in printing both by blocks and moveable types, being sold for manuscripts, were anonymous, the invention being by them intended to be kept sceret, nor was it divulged till their disagreement, by which time Fust had made himself master of that art, and Guttemberg was not able to proceed in it alone, for the reason abovementioned.

Mr. Calamy, is mentioned in the catalogue of such part of his library as after his decease was sold, and is there inserted, page 36, under the following title. Engbartus de Leydis de arte dictandi libri tres. Tractatus de Elegantia Compositione et Dignitate, per Enghelbertum. Gerardus Leeu impressit 1454; to which is subjoined this note, Est primus liber impressus. Maittaire, Mead, &c. nunquam viderunt.' These words are the occasion of the present observations, which I make, to shew that it is far from being the first printed book, the date being that of its publication when in manuscript, and not of its impression.

Some gentlemen have imagined the date in question to have been falsified by the printer, either by design or mistake; but for this there was no occasion, as will appear by giving a due attention to the subscription, which is at the end of the treatise De arte dictandi, in the following words:

De arte dictandi tres libri expliciunt, editi a magistro engbarto de leydis, ut ei in mentem Verba venere Anno dni Millessimo quadrigentesimo quinquagesimo quarto, sextadecima, die mensis Aprilis.

At the end of the other treatise is Gerardus Leeu impressit, but no mention of the time when, or the place where printed,

Others who have supposed this book to have been really printed in 1454, have been misled by mistaking the meaning of the word' editi,' in regard to which, Palmer, (in his History of Printing) observes from M. de la Monnoye, that the phrase of 'libri editi' was used long before the invention of printing, and signified only books published and dispersed abroad, in some considerable number, in opposition to those that were written fair to be set up in libraries, which were called 'libri scripti.' This observation he proves by a quotation from Philelphus, who, speaking of his ten books of Latin Odes (of which the first five were not sent to the press until the year 1497) expresses himself as follows: Carminum libri editi quinque versuum quinque millibus: nam alteri quinque qui tantundem versus complectentur partim scripti sunt, non editi, partim ne scripti quidem.' And, upon looking into the classic authors, I find that phrase so frequently occurring, that to the above testimony I could, if necessary, add many more, but as the recital of them would be tiresome to the reader, I shall only just mention the following: Nam aliquid est hoc tempore edendum. Plin. Epist. L. i, Ep. 2. Ut annales suos emendem et edam. Cic. Att. ii. 16. Ne præcipitetur editio. Quintil. ad bibliopolam.

Palmer observes further, that the custom of putting the dates of printed books at the end of them was taken up in imitation of many of the manuscripts of the middle age, and that, as many of these dates have been printed verbatim from the manuscripts, gentlemen should be cautious least they be led into error by them, and not, from the obscurity of the subscription, take them for the time of the impression.

That learned antiquary, Mr. Strype, was, as Dr. Middleton observes, led into such an error concerning a piece of rhetoric, written by Laurentius Gulielmus de Saona, and printed at St. Alban's, in 1480, which he imagined, from the words Compilatum in Universitate Cantabrigiae 1478,' to have been printed at that time, and in that University. So the first edition of the Stypnerotomachia Poliphili, printed at Venice, by Aldus in 1499, has been supposed to be printed at Treviso in 1467, on account of these words in it: 'Tarvisii, cum decorissimis Poliæ amore lorulis distineretur misellus Poliphilus, M.CCCC.LXVII. Kalendis Maii.' This has been mistaken by many* for the year when the book was printed, whereas the words only shew the time when it was finished by its author Francisco Colonna. If any should doubt this assertion, I refer them to the learned Mr. Maittaire, in his Typographical Annals, and to Orlandi in his Origine e progressi della Stampa, or rather to the book itself, when it can be met with, being very scarce; there is a leaf at the end, containing the errata, and concluding thus Venetiis mense Decembris MID. (in ædibus Aldi Manutii accuratissimé.)

If the book under consideration was not printed so early as 1454, it may now perhaps be expected that I should shew when it was; to this I can only say, that it is not possible to point out the very year of its impression, the book itself having no date; a circumstance common in many of the works of those who printed towards the close of the fifteenth century; it is a short thin folio, and not a quarto, as by mistake it is called in Mr. Calamy's catalogue; the leaves are not paged, but have the signatures, or letters of the alphabet, placed at the bottom of the page, for the direction of the binder, an improvement not practised at soonest before the year 1470. Gerard de Leeu, from whose press it came, is well known to have printed at Gouda from

* See Catalogus Bibliothecæ Meadianæ, p. 174, and in several other cats. logues, not drawn up by booksellers, but by men of learning.

1473* to 1480, and then removed to Antwerp, where he followed his business till the year 1491.

From what is here said, I hope it will appear to the satisfaction of every one, that although this book has so early a date, yet that it is not that of its impression, but of the publication when in manuscript.

I have thought proper to make these observations, in order to prevent the unwary from being deceived by a date ill understood: it is with deference that I submit them to the learned, and in particular to the candour of such gentlemen as have studied the antiquities of the art of printing, the invention of which has proved so beneficial to mankind.

April 30, 1759. 1759, July.

PHILARCHAIOS.

XLVIII. Vindication of the Honour of Yeomanry.

THE title Yeoman is generally in no esteem, because its worth is not known. A yeoman that is authentically such, is by his title, on a level with an esquire. All the difference is, that one hath precedence of the other, as a marquis hath precedence of an earl, and that one is of Norman, and the other of Old English derivation. The title yeoman is of military origin, as well as that of esquire, and other titles of honour. Esquires were so called, because in combat they carried for defence an ecu, or shield; and yeomen were so stiled, because, besides the weapons proper for close engagement, they fought with arrows and the bow, which was made of yew, a tree that hath more repelling force and elasticity than any other.

Jo. Christ. Seiz, says 1472, but notwithstanding that he gives the title of a book pretended to be printed by him that year, yet there is great reason to doubt of it, as it is mentioned by no other author, nor does he say, either that he saw it himself, or in whose library it was to be found; and besides, that his blind partiality to Holland has led him into so many mistakes in his Historical Narrative of the Invention of Printing, which is little more than a revival of the old legend of Hadrian Junius, and so stuffed with forgeries and calumnies, tending to deprive both Guttemberg and Fust of the honour of being the first inventors of the art of printing, the era of which he carries as far back as the year 1429, attributing it, without the least foundation, to one Laurens Jansz, surnamed Koster of Haerlem, that it may be safely said he is not to be relied on.