^{page 335 note a} Read to the Archaeological Society of Glasgow, December 18th, 1884.

^{page 335 note b} May 1st, 1884.

^{page 336 note a} Medical Bibliography, London, 1834, p. 68Google Scholar.

^{page 336 note b} Typographical Antiquities, London, 1749, pp. 76–78Google Scholar.

^{page 336 note c} Typographical Antiquities, London, 1785-1790. Vol. i. pp. 111–116Google Scholar; vol. iii. p. 1773.

^{page 336 note d} Typographical Antiquities, London, 1812, vol. ii. pp. 4–30Google Scholar.

^{page 336 note e} Typographic, London, 1824, vol. i. pp. 212–219Google Scholar. InA Bibliography of Printing, by , Bigmore and , Wyman, London, 1884, there is no notice of Machlinia under the letter MGoogle Scholar.

^{page 336 note f} Catalogue of Books … printed in England … to the year 1640, London, 1884, vol. iii. p. 1765Google Scholar.

^{page 336 note g} , Dibdin, Bibliotheca Spenceriana, London, 1815, vol. iv. pp. 383–94Google Scholar.

^{page 336 note h} , Hartshorne, The Book Rarities in the University of Cambridge, London, 1829, p. 144Google Scholar.

^{page 336 note i} Sinker, Robert, A Catalogue of the fifteenth-century printed Books in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, Cambridge, 1876, p. 3, No. 8Google Scholar.

^{page 337 note a} , Dibdin (Typ. Ant. vol. ii. p. 30)Google Scholar mentions a copy of the Chronicle of England in the library at Osterley Park. That library also has been advertised for sale since the above was written.

^{page 338 note a} Bibliotheca Spenceriana, London, 1815, vol. iv. p. 392, No. 898Google Scholar.

^{page 338 note b} By the kindness of F. Madan, Esq., M.A.

^{page 339 note a} That is: The Beuelacion of a MonJce in the Abbey of Euishamme. This remark is preposterous, and its accuracy is questionable. Dibdin says here that the type of a book with Machlinia's name actually at it is the same as that of a book without a printer's name, ascribed by Herbert to an unknown printer, who, Dibdin assumes, was Machlinia! The following notable succession of statements is got from Dibdin. The type of the Liber Aggregationis is the same as that of the Reuelacion, which is printed with type of the same character as that of the Nova Statuta, but ruder. (This by the way does not tally at all with Dibdin's praise of the elegance of the Liber Aggregationis.) The Nova Statuta type is said to be similar to that of the Statuta, which is said to be the same as that of the Speculum Christiani, which is one of the books with Machlinia's imprint. Therefore the Renelacion must be similar to the Statuta and to the Speculum Christiani. Now Herbert had a leaf kk iiii of the Statuta, and he says that its type is very different from that of the Speculum Christiani. The facsimile of a page of this leaf is given by Dibdin, and the type is not at all like that of the Liber Aggregationis. The Liber Aggregationis therefore cannot, as Dibdin says, be printed with the same type as the Reuelacion. The Jleuelacion cannot be like three books which are unlike one another. There must be confusion somewhere.

^{page 339 note b} Bibliotheca Spenceriana, London, 1815, vol. iv. p. 392, No. 898Google Scholar.

^{page 339 note c} White Knights Library, Sale Catalogue, London, 1819, part i. p. 6, No. 134.

^{page 340 note a} Bibliotheca Britannica, Edinburgh, 1824, vol. ii. (authors) 629uGoogle Scholar.