Oh, wow, the first time I went to your scans I didn’t scroll down and see the other scans, hah! I still think it’s printed-- APB’s right, I’m sure, about France (I’ve had Italian printing on the mind lately) but I still think it’s printed despite the difference in letters. Inconsistency and printing are close pals in this time period. Font and type and type setting were much less standard than what we can accomplish-- lazy apprentice sticks an ‘a’ from font X in the font Y bin or the metal wasn’t pouring as well or they used a slightly different mold for that piece or whatever-- note how the letters don’t line up very well, either. They’re working largely with little wooden shims to get type to line up right. I think the gummy mushy edges might be due to printing on uneven vellum with a bit of pooling of ink in spots and totally missing the surface in others.
Is it out of the frame? If so, can you tell if there’s anything like a plate strike along the margins? Probably hard to tell with type/woodcut but there might be a little impression made? Do the letters feel embossed at all to your fingers?
With the . . ligatures? What do we call the compound-letter type, like the s-t or the c-t in Benedicta in the second line of the first scan? Anyway, do those compounds occur as often in script, or are they an artifact of printing-- timesaving device in typesetting, does anyone know?