[Misprint] Het Oude Goutsche Chronycxken van Hollandt, Zeelandt, Vrieslandt en Utrecht.

Door de heer petrus Scriverius op nieus oversien en verbetert, Als mede met een byvoeghsel en toet-steen vermeerdert, Met der graven afbeeldingen in 't Kooper verçiert. Amsterdam, I.H. Boom et al., 1663, (8),280 [= 276] p., with engraved frontispiece and many engraved portraits in the text, contemporary vellum, 4to.

With contemporary manuscript poem, signed "Constanter 10. 77" and dated 24-1-1708 on the free endpaper and a manuscript annotation on the first edition from 1478 ((...) "De autheur is ons tot noch toe onbekend"). Not only a good copy but also highly interesting: the paging omits 180-183, but the reverse of page 179 is paged 184 and the quire in question, Z, consists of only 2 leaves. The custodes do connect well, which makes the error understandable. Our misprint differs from a digitised copy online (Ghent) in more than one way, however, beginning with leaf Z, which has at the bottom a slightly different text and custode. In the digitised copy consulted, pages 178 and 179 (and p. 183, the one lacking in our misprint) have an engraving, which is not the case in our misprint. In the digitised copy consulted the engraving for Maximilianus Austriacus (p. 179) and the one for Philippus Austriacus (p. 183) are also identical, a sign that the printer did not strictly follow the rules even in the corrected version. This for example has been corrected in the KB copy (and another Ghent copy), the engraving on p. 183 has been replaced there. In short, the printer initially messed up this publication, and our copy adds another dimension to this. Due to the large number of errors, we assume our copy belongs to one of the earliest printings (proof?).