S. G. "Isle of Pines" be [22]established.{1} The
probabilities are all against Samuel Green. The incident is a good
example of the danger of giving play to the imagination on an appearance
of a combination of fads cemented by interest.

Thus disappears from our memory the certain identification of the S. G.
pamphlet as an early issue of the press in Cambridge, and with it goes
my identification of the Johnson pamphlet with the S. G. title-page--a
veritable pipe dream. It might be urged that as White Kennett was
collecting on America, it would be more than probable that he would
have had an American issue; but his own catalogue of 1713 describes the
nine-page tract, and that is our London edition. I might claim still
that my Johnson was a Johnson, with a London title-page; but the
typographical adornment on the first page of its text is just the same
as the adornment on the first page of the London issue--three rows
of fleur-de-lys, thirty-seven in each row, and the same kind of type
characters.{2}

1 Lowndes indexes it under George Pine, and describes a
nine-page trait--probably the one now in the British Museum.
He quotes a sale of a copy in it 60 (Puttkk) for L4.10s. He
indexes the combined parts under Sloetten, and notes a copy,
with the plate, sold in the White Knights sale for 1s..

2 To attempt to reason from types or rule of thumb
measurements, however suggestive, leads to indefinite
conclusions. For example, the width of the type page of the
S. G. issue of the first part is exactly that of the English
issue of the second part, but the former has 33 tines to the
page and the latter a a. The width of the page in the
variant S. G. issue is narrower and there are 38 and 39
lines to the page. But in the London second part the width
of page varies by a quarter of an inch. We have Marmaduke
Johnson's issue of Paine's Daily Meditations y issued in
1670 in connection with S. G. The ornamental border of
fleur-de-lys is entirely different from those in the S. G.
Isle of Pines. A copy of Johnson's issue of Scottow's
translation of Bretz on the Anabaptists, printed in 1668,
the very year of the Isle of Pines, shows a different foot
of italics from that used in the Isle of Pines variant,
yet the roman characters in the two pieces seem identical,
and the width of page is exactly the same.

So I bid farewell