Thomas Buck appears to have held the office of printer to the University from 1625 for upward of forty years. During that period he had several partners besides Daniel, with all of whom he quarrelled. Daniel was appointed on July 24, 1632, and the next year, or the year when Herbert's book was published, entered into an agreement by which he received one-third of the profits of the office, while Buck received two-thirds. Duodecimo. COLLATION: ¶, _four leaves; A-I2, in twelves_. JOHN DONNE (1573-1631) 25. Poems, | By J. D. | With | Elegies | On The Authors | Death. | London.| Printed by M. F. for Iohn Marriot, | and are to be ſold at his ſhop in St. Dunſtans | Churchyard in Fleet-ſtreet. 1633. An entry in the Registers of the Stationers' Company shows the book to have been regularly licensed, though somewhat delayed owing to the doubts of the censor concerning the Satires and certain of the Elegies. "_13^o Septembris 1632_ "John Marriott. Entred for his Copy vnder the handes of Sir Henry Herbert and both the Wardens a booke of verses and Poems (the five satires, the first, second, Tenth, Eleaventh and Thirteenth Elegies being excepted) and these before excepted to be his, when he bringes lawfull authority ... vj^d. "written by Doctor John Dunn." But in 1637, after two editions had been published, the poet's son, who had a somewhat unsavory reputation, addressed a petition to the Archbishop of Canterbury stating that it had been put forth "withoute anie leaue or Authoritie," and, as a result, the Archbishop issued the following order, December 16, 1637. "I require ye Parties whom this Petition concernes not to meddle any farther with ye Printing or Selling of any ye pretended workes of ye late Deane of St. Paules, saue onely such as shall be licensed by publike authority, and approued by the Petitioner, as they will answere ye contrary to theyr perill. And this I desire Mr. Deane of ye Arches to take care." In view of this discussion, Marriot's note in "The Printer To The Understanders," which is not found in all copies, and which, since it is printed on two extra leaves, was evidently an afterthought for late issues, takes on an added interest. It would be difficult to say whether his apologies touching on all these matters were actuated by the noble spirit in which he claims he printed the book, or to ward off anticipated criticism. One is almost tempted to try and read between the lines when he exclaims: