At first sight this may appear somewhat technical, but when a few of these collations are compared with actual copies of the works to which they refer, there will be no difficulty in understanding all the rest. The above, for instance, would read, when set out at full length, as follows: "There are four preliminary leaves, and then follows the Bible text proper, which, from Genesis to the 2nd of Maccabees, is on 474 numbered leaves. The New Testament, which follows, has 122 leaves; then comes 'A Briefe Table,' extending from signature HH h iii to LL l iii, and comprising 13 leaves, followed by one page, 'The order of the yeres from Paul's conversion,' &c. The reverse side of this page is blank." The words "page" and "leaf" have distinct meanings, the latter, of course, containing two of the former, unless, indeed, one side happens to be blank, as in the above example. If both sides are blank, the description would be simply "i 1 blank". From 1457--the date of Fust and Schoeffer's Psalter, already described as being the first printed book disclosing on its face the year of publication--until comparatively recent times, it was customary to use Roman numerals on the colophon or title-page, as the case might be. This system of notation is so well understood, or can be so speedily mastered from almost any arithmetical treatise, that it is hardly worth while to enlarge upon it here. On some old books, however, there is a dual form of the "D" representing 500, which is sometimes the cause of considerable perplexity; e.g., MI[C]XL standing for the year 1540. In this example the I[C] is equivalent to D; in fact, it would appear as if the former numeral were merely a mutilation of the latter. Again, the form CI[C] is equivalent to M or 1000. A few instances will make the distinction apparent:-- M I[C] XXIV} or M D XXIV} = 1524; CI[C] I[C] CLXXXV} or M D CLXXXV} = 1685; CI[C] I[C] CLXI} or M D CLXI} = 1661.