5467, which he collated for his text. There must be plenty more about the country, as in Ashmole MS. 61, fol. 16, back, in the Bodleian.[18] Of old printed editions Mr Hazlitt notes one “from the press of Caxton, but the only copy known is imperfect. It was printed two or three times by Wynkyn de Worde. Lowndes mentions two, 1518, 4to, and 1524, 4to; and in the public library at Cambridge there is said by Hartshorne (_Book Rarities_, 156) to be a third without date. It is also appended to the various impressions of the _Boke of Nurture_ by Hugh Rhodes.” This _Boke_ has been reprinted for the Early English Text Society, and its _Stans Puer_ is Rhodes’s own expansion of one of the shorter English versions of the original Latin[19]. The woodcuts Messrs Virtue have allowed me to have copies of for a small royalty, and they will help the reader to realize parts of the text better than any verbal description. The cuts are not of course equal to the beautiful early illuminations they are taken from, but they are near enough for the present purpose. The dates of those from British Museum MSS. are given on the authority of trustworthy officers of the Manuscript Department. The dates of the non-Museum MSS. are copied from Mr Wright’s text. The line of description under the cuts is also from Mr Wright’s text, except in one instance where he had missed the fact of the cut representing the Marriage Feast at Cana of Galilee, with its six water-pots. The MS. of Russell is on thick folio paper, is written in a close--and seemingly unprofessional--hand, fond of making elaborate capitals to the initials of its titles, and thus occasionally squeezing up into a corner the chief word of the title, because the _T_ of _The_ preceding has required so much room.[20] The MS. has been read through by a corrector with a red pen, pencil, or brush, who has underlined all the important words, touched up the capitals, and evidently believed in the text. Perhaps the corrector, if not writer, was Russell himself. I hope it was, for the old man must have enjoyed emphasizing his precepts with those red scores; but then he would hardly have allowed a space to remain blank in line 204, and have left his Panter-pupil in doubt as to whether he should lay his “white payne” on the left or right of his knives. Every butler, drill-serjeant, and vestment-cleric, must feel the thing to be impossible. The corrector was not John Russell.