In the absence of any positive objection, the conclusion of the auction
expert--that the S. G. imprint was one of Samuel Green of Cambridge,
Massachusetts--remained unquestioned. But a study of editions and of the
chronological sequence of the English issues offers a decided negative
to such a conclusion. The first part was licensed June 27, 1668. Van
Sloetten dated the second part July 22, 1668, and the issue of the
combined parts was licensed five days later, July 27. In the space
of just four weeks all three trads were licensed, and the actual
publication must have occurred within the same period of time. Such had
been the start obtained by the first part that on the continent it was
used for reprint and translation, almost to the neglect of the second
part, and, as we have seen, most of these translations appeared before
the end of 1668. Now the tract was not known in Massachusetts until
discovered by the inquest on printers in September, and a S. G. or
Samuel Green edition could hardly have come from the press before
October, even if not delayed by the proceedings against Johnson. Yet on
die title-page of the Dutch translation issued at Rotterdam in 1668, the
printer states at length that it is from a copy from London, by S. G.
for Allen Banks and Charles Harper, in the Lily near Cripplegate Church,
and in his note "To the Reader" he expressly repeats that he obtained
a copy of the work from London, in order to correct a faulty issue by
another Dutch printer.
If S. G. was Samuel Green, we must suppose that one of his Cambridge
issues was shipped to Rotterdam in time to [21]be translated and
reprinted before the end of the year. In point of time the thing could
be done, but in point of probability it was impossible. Apart from his
own statement, there were a thousand to one chances in favor of the
Dutch printer obtaining the pamphlet from London; there were ten
thousand chances to one against his getting it from Massachusetts. I
reject the supposition that this was a Cambridge imprint for that reason
alone.
Additional evidence hostile to the claim may be adduced. The copy of the
first tract in the British Museum is the S. G. for Banks and Harper.{1}