The publications of Caxton are about sixty in number, and I am sure that more than six pages would seldom be required for any one work, and that many articles might be properly treated in less than two pages each. A short memoir of Caxton, a glossary of obsolete words and phrases, an appendix of documents, and an index, are the only additions which I should consider as essential to the completeness of the design. All this might be comprised in an octavo volume of moderate extent. The _Typographical antiquities_ of Ames, as augmented by Dibdin, being the accredited source of information on Caxton, and having misled some superior writers, I shall presume to deliver my opinion of the _first_ volume of that work--not having much acquaintance with the subsequent volumes. Dibdin had formed, at the very outset, a most injudicious resolution. Caxton was his hero; and he resolved, as he tells us in his autobiography, to "devote the first volume entirely to the productions of his press." In order to carry out this plan, he was led to introduce much extraneous and useless matter. We have endless repetitions of what _Lewis says_, and what _Ames says_, and what _Herbert says_, and even what the dreamer _Bagford says_, instead of such information as should have been derived from an examination of the books themselves. Moreover, he is very deficient in the _logic of history_, in point of method, and in point of accuracy; and the extracts, being in modern orthography, are to philological students UTTERLY WORTHLESS. This, and perhaps more than this, I may hereafter have occasion to prove; and should it seem to others that I express myself harshly, due consideration shall be given to their objections. I must now assure MR. BOTFIELD that it gives me satisfaction to observe him somewhat disposed to view my project with favour, and that I am not less disposed to make such modifications of the conditions of publication as may meet the wishes of himself and the other contributors toward _The Caxton Testimonial_. Two modes of union suggest themselves, which I submit to his consideration in the form of queries. 1. If the preparation and impression of the intended volume should be undertaken by a certain literary society, honourably distinguished by the substantial character of the works which have been edited under its sanction, would the committee of _The Caxton Testimonial_ engage to take a certain number of copies, in case the council of the society alluded to should assent to such a deviation from its usual course? 2. If this arrangement should be objected to on either side, would the committee of _The Caxton Testimonial_ undertake to produce a literary memorial of Caxton on the plan before-described, or not much differing from it, and under the editorship of persons to be named by themselves?