The preceding arrangement--including Meerman’s opinion respecting the priority of the Dutch edition--rests entirely on conjecture, and is almost diametrically contradicted in every instance by the evidence afforded by the books themselves; for through the comparisons and investigations of Mr. Ottley it is proved, to an absolute certainty, that the Latin edition supposed by Heineken to be the second is the _earliest of all_; that the edition No. 4, called the second Dutch, is the next in order to the actual first Latin; and that the two editions, No. 1 and No. 3, respectively proclaimed by Heineken and Meerman as the earliest, have been printed subsequently to the other two.[II-81] Which of the pretended _first_ editions was in reality the _last_, has not been satisfactorily determined; though there seems reason to believe that it was the Latin one which has part of the text printed from wood-blocks. [Footnote II-81: Inquiry into the Origin and Early History of Engraving, pp. 205-217. Though differing from Mr. Ottley in the conclusions which he draws from the facts elicited by him respecting the priority of the editions of the Speculum, I bear a willing testimony to the value of his discoveries on this subject, which may rank among the most interesting that have resulted from bibliographical research.] It is well known to every person acquainted with the practice of wood-engraving, that portions of single lines in such cuts as those of the Speculum are often broken out of the block in the process of printing. If two books, therefore, containing the same wood-cuts, but evidently printed at different times, though without a date, should be submitted to the examination of a person acquainted with the above fact and bearing it in mind, he would doubtless declare that the copy in which the cuts were most perfect was first printed, and that the other in which parts of the cuts appeared broken away was of a later date. If, on comparing other copies of the same editions he should find the same variations, the impression on his mind as to the priority of the editions would amount to absolute certainty. The identity of the cuts in all the four editions of the Speculum being unquestionable, and as certain minute fractures in the lines of some of them, as if small portions of the block had been broken out in printing, had been previously noticed by Fournier and Heineken, Mr. Ottley conceived the idea of comparing the respective cuts in the different editions, with a view of ascertaining the order in which they were printed. He first compared two copies of the edition called the _first Latin_ with a copy of that called the _second Dutch_, and finding, that, in several of the cuts of the former, parts of lines were wanting which in the latter were perfect, he concluded that the miscalled _second Dutch_ edition was in fact of an earlier date than the pretended _first Latin_ edition of Heineken.