In such a case as this, however, mere recollection cannot be admitted as decisive of the fact, more especially when we know the many instances in which mistakes have been committed in reading the numerals in ancient dates. At page 88 of his Inquiry, Mr. Ottley, catching at every straw that may help to support his theory of wood engraving having been practised by the Cunio and others in the fourteenth century, refers to a print which a Monsieur Thierry professed to have seen at Lyons, inscribed “SCHOTING OF NUREMBERG,” with the date 1384; and at p. 256 he alludes to it again in the following words: “The date 1384 on the wood-cut preserved at Lyons, said to have been executed at Nuremberg, appears, I know not why, to have been suspected.” It has been more than suspected; for, on examination, it has been found to be 1584. Paul Von Stettin published an account of a Biblia Pauperum, the date of which he supposed to be 1414; but which, when closely examined, was found to be 1474: and Baron Von Hupsch, of Cologne, published in 1787 an account of some wood-cuts which he supposed to have been executed in 1420; but which, in the opinion of Breitkopf, were part of the cuts of a Biblia Pauperum, in which it was probably intended to give the explanations in moveable types underneath the cuts, and probably of a later date than 1470.[II-31] [Footnote II-31: Singer’s Researches into the History of Playing-cards, p. 107.] It is surprising that the Rev. Mr. Horne, who is no incurious observer of books, but an author who has written largely on Bibliography, should not have carefully copied so remarkable a date, or communicated it to a friend, when it might have been confirmed by a careful examination of the binding; and still more surprising is it that such binding should have been destroyed. From the very fact of his not having paid more particular attention to this most important date, and from his having permitted the evidence of it to be destroyed, the Rev. Mr. Horne seems to be an incompetent witness. Who would think of calling a person to prove from recollection the date of an old and important deed, who, when he had it in his possession, was so little aware of its value as to throw it away? The three books in question, when covered by such a binding, would surely be much greater than when bound in any other manner. Such a volume must have been unique; and, if the date on the binding were correct, it must have been admitted as decisive of a fact interesting to every bibliographer in Europe. It is not even mentioned in what kind of numerals the date was expressed, whether in Roman or Arabic. If the numerals had been Arabic, we might very reasonably suppose that the Rev. Mr. Horne had mistaken a seven for a two, and that, instead of “142 odd,” the correct date was “147 odd.” In Arabic numerals, such as were used about the middle of the fifteenth century, the seven may very easily be mistaken for a two.