( 15^7 ) 
May : but it was not my fortune to fee tbem fooner 9 
which if I hadp ! might have been able probably to have 
made my account better. But notwithftandhig it is imper- 
fed, it may, 1 hope, introduce better from others : or 
however be a teftimony of my great Veneration for the 
Auguft Royal Society, and obedien^se unto the commands 
thereof, who at one of their Meetings fome time flace, 
were pleafed-to de&e me to procure,^ or give an account ' 
-of this-matte-r. 
W. Some Ohferlhitmns conctnim^ the Inyention andTrO'- 
grefs 'of ^rintmg^ to the Tear 1465. Occajtoned by 
:hy the ^eVerend Mr Ellis'i' Letter, exhibited jti Phil. 
Tranf. Mo z%6. fag. 1 4 1 
WHat this Gentleman fays about the Books Printed at 
Hdrlaem by Laurence Kofier^ agreeing fo well with 
the account given by Theodore Schrevelim and othersjleaves us 
Tittle or no room to doubt (whomuftneedstakeit for grant- 
ed that his Obfervation isaccurate^and xhcDates to be true 0 
whether the Honour of the Invention be due to thh or the 
other Cities,whofe Writers have fo eagerly contended forit^ 
fince none of them have pretended to (hew any Book Print- 
ed fo foon as J. D, «430 or 1452, or near that time. But 
the difficulty lies, either in (hewingwhy thePrafticeof ch s 
Art fliould be at a ftand from A, D. 1 432. to the not^d Re- 
viving of it at Me97ti. by John Fuji and Peter Schoeffcr^ who 
fas it has been vulgarly, but erroneoufly fiiid ) did Prim 
the firft Printed Rook there A D. 1465. namtl^'., TnU/s 
Offices: or die, m giving any tolerable account of the 
Progrefs of this Invention during an Interval of above 30 
^years. 
Y y y y y y yy ^ ^^-^^ 
