In further comparing the above editions with the supposed _second Latin_ edition of Heineken and the supposed _first Dutch_ edition of Meerman, he found that the cuts in the miscalled second Latin edition were the most perfect of all; and that the cuts in Heineken’s first Latin and Meerman’s first Dutch editions contained more broken lines than the edition named by those authors the _second Dutch_. The conclusion which he arrived at from those facts was irresistible, namely, that the earliest edition of all was that called by Heineken the second Latin; and that the edition called the second Dutch was the next in order. As the cuts in the copies examined of the pretended _first_ Latin and Dutch editions contained similar fractures, it could not be determined with certainty which was actually the _last_. As it is undoubted that the cuts of all the editions have been printed separately from the text, it has been objected that Mr. Ottley’s examination has only ascertained the order in which the cuts have been printed, but by no means decided the priority of the editions of the entire book. All the cuts, it has been objected, might have been taken by the engraver before the text was printed in a single edition, and it might thus happen that the book first printed with text might contain the last, and consequently the most imperfect cuts. This exception, which is founded on a very improbable presumption, will be best answered by the following facts established on a comparison of the two Latin, and which, I believe, have not been previously noticed:--On closely comparing those pages which are printed with moveable types in the true second edition with the corresponding pages in that edition which is properly the first, it was evident from the different spelling of many of the words, and the different length of the lines, that they had been printed at different times: but on comparing, however, those pages which are printed in the second edition from engraved wood-blocks with the corresponding pages, from moveable type, in the first edition, I found the spelling and the length of the lines to be the same. The page printed from the wood-block was, in short, a fac-simile of the corresponding page printed from moveable types. So completely did they correspond, that I have no doubt that an impression of the page printed from moveable types had been “transferred,”[II-82] as engravers say, to the block. In the last cut[II-83] of the first edition I noticed a scroll which was quite black, as if meant to contain an inscription which the artist had neglected to engrave; and in the second edition I perceived that the black was cut away, thus having the part intended for the inscription white. Another proof, in addition to those adduced by Mr. Ottley of that Latin edition being truly the first in which the whole of the text is printed from moveable types.