It follows therefore, from the evidence of the paper-marks, that the printing of the _Speculum_ could not have taken place before 1445; that most probably it was not printed earlier than 1453; and that it may not have issued from the press before even 1480. Consequently, as the _Speculum_ was the first Dutch work printed with separable types, it cannot claim priority over the invention of Gutenberg, which, as has been shewn in the preceding chapter, must have been previous to 1436. As to the costume and armour of the figures in the vignettes of the _Speculum_,[130] the following extracts from Sir Samuel Meyrick’s letter to Mr. Ottley, and the observations of the latter thereon, are most pertinent. Sir Samuel says:-- “Next to actual dates, there is no criterion of age so sure as _Costume, which, changing on an average within every ten years, fixes the real period, almost precisely_; especially, as, all its parts not varying at the same moment, the one rectifies the vagueness of the other. After costume, ornament is a fair guide, as is architecture; and next to these, the style of writing, where the subject is a manuscript. “You are, no doubt, well aware that the _designers of the middle ages_, until the latter part of the seventeenth century, _always dressed their figures from the objects before their eyes_; and those writers who would fabricate descriptions of what they wished should be supposed to have occurred before their times, always used the terms of costume applicable to their own period.” Then follow numerous illustrations and references, in proof of the position laid down; amongst which are the different articles of armour used from the reigns of Edward I, to Henry VIII. With reference to some of these articles, Sir S. Meyrick continues:-- “On comparing these with what appears in the woodcuts to the Speculum, the identity will be evident. It is true that their use continued till the close of the fifteenth century; but this authority shews that they were also known at its commencement.... “On a careful review and consideration of the whole, I am inclined to think, that the wood-blocks of the Speculum cannot be of later date than 1435, and that they may be a little earlier; nor is this opinion in the least degree shaken on an examination of the rest, besides that of which you more particularly asked it.” But Mr. Ottley will not venture to assign to the woodcuts so early a date. He says:-- “I believe all will agree with Dr. Meyrick, that the artists of the times we are speaking of, and of earlier as well as much later periods, were universally accustomed to dress their figures according to the fashion of their own day, whatever the age of the subject they had to represent; and that, therefore _costume_ (and I might add, the style of art) affords, next to actual dates, the surest means of determining the age of an illuminated manuscript or other monument.