With respect to the first objection, it is to be remembered that in all the editions, the text, whether from wood-blocks or moveable types, has been printed separately from the cuts; consequently the cuts of the first edition might be printed by a wood-engraver, and the text set up and printed by another person who possessed moveable types. The engraver of the cuts might not be possessed of any moveable types when the text of the first edition was printed; and, as it is a well-known fact that wood-engravers continued to execute entire pages of text for upwards of thirty years after the establishment of printing with moveable types, it is not unlikely that he might attempt to engrave the text of a second edition and print the book solely for his own advantage. This supposition is to a certain extent corroborated by the fact of the twenty pages of engraved text in the second Latin edition being fac-similes of the twenty corresponding pages of text from moveable types in the first. To the second objection every day’s experience suggests a ready answer; for scarcely anything is more common than for a person to attempt a work which he finds it difficult to complete, and, after making some progress in it, to require the aid of a kindred art, and abandon his original plan. As the first edition of the Speculum was printed subsequent to the discovery of the art of printing with moveable types, and as it was probably printed in the Low Countries, where the typographic art was first introduced about 1472, I can discover no reason for believing that the work was executed before that period. Santander, who was so well acquainted with the progress of typography in Belgium and Holland, is of opinion that the Speculum is not of an earlier date than 1480. In 1483 John Veldener printed at Culemburg a quarto edition of the Speculum, in which the cuts are the same as in the earlier folios. In order to adapt the cuts to this smaller edition Veldener had sawn each block in two, through the centre pillar which forms a separation between the two compartments in each of the original engravings. Veldener’s quarto edition, which has the text printed on both sides of the paper from moveable types, contains twelve more cuts than the older editions, but designed and executed in the same style.[II-84] If Lawrence Coster had been the inventor of printing with moveable types, and if any one folio edition of the Speculum had been executed by him, we cannot suppose that Veldener, who was himself a wood-engraver, as well as a printer, would have been ignorant of those facts. He, however, printed two editions of the Fasciculus Temporum,--one at Louvain in 1476, and the other at Utrecht in 1480,--a work which contains a short notice of the art of printing being discovered at Mentz, but not a syllable concerning its discovery at Harlem by Lawrence Coster. The researches of Coster’s advocates have clearly established one important fact, though an