The close connection of all these types points to the books having been produced in one place; but where this one place was, cannot be determined. The account written by Junius, in 1568, of the invention of printing by Coster, mentions Haarlem as the place where he printed, and they have therefore been always ascribed to Haarlem by such writers as believe in the Costerian invention. Mr. Bradshaw, who refused to assign books to particular places without reason, said: ‘I am compelled to leave the _Speculum_ at Utrecht until I know anything positive to the contrary; because it is at Utrecht that the cuts first appear, cut up into pieces in a book printed by Veldener at that place in 1481.’ This statement does not mean that the Costeriana were necessarily printed at Utrecht, but that the place where we find the materials as soon as they can be connected with any place, is Utrecht, and that therefore such little evidence as exists is in favour of these books having been printed there. One point which tells in favour of Utrecht, is the fact that one of the Costeriana is a _Donatus_ in French, and Utrecht is one of the few places in the Netherlands where such a book is likely to have been produced. There is no direct evidence in favour of Haarlem or Utrecht; and indirect evidence is not particularly in favour of Haarlem, unless it is considered that some belief may be placed in Junius’ wonderful narrative. It is certainly wiser to leave the matter open, or, with Bradshaw, place the books provisionally at Utrecht till we have a better reason for placing them elsewhere. The more important question as to the date when these Costeriana were produced, seems still as far as ever from any satisfactory solution. Mr. Hessels takes them back to 1446 by the ingenious method of putting eighteen months between each edition. This method of working is based on no sound principle, and leads to no result of any value. Another argument of Mr. Hessels, and one that is hardly worthy of so learned a writer, is that since the Costeriana look older than the first Mainz books, therefore they are older. The foolishness of this reasoning is too apparent to need any explanation, for it amounts to the assertion that the same phase of development in different countries means the same date. But if the earliest dated books of the Low Countries are compared with the productions of Germany, it needs a prejudiced eye to see in the former any approach to the exquisite beauty and regularity of the German type and printing.