Papillon’s insanity had been previously adverted to by Heineken; and this writer’s remarks have produced the following correction from Mr. Ottley: “Heineken takes some pains to show that poor Papillon was not in his right mind; and, amongst his other arguments, quotes a passage from his book, t. i. p. 335, in which he says, ‘_Par un accident et une fatalité commune à plusieurs graveurs, aussi bien qu’à moi, Le Fevre est devenu aliéné d’esprit_:’ as if a little pleasantry of expression, such as the French writers, especially, have ever felt themselves at full liberty to indulge in, could really constitute fit grounds for a statute of lunacy.”[I-43] Had Mr. Ottley, instead of confidently correcting Heineken when the latter had stated nothing but the fact, turned to the cited page of Papillon’s volume, he would there have found that Papillon was indulging in no “little pleasantry of expression,” but was seriously relating a melancholy fact of two brother artists losing their senses about the same time as himself; and had he ever read the supplement, or third volume, of Papillon’s work, he would have seen, at p. 39, the account which Papillon himself gives of his own insanity. [Footnote I-43: Inquiry into the Early History of Engraving, vol. i. p. 23.] Having disposed of the story as told by Papillon, it remains now to notice “the learning and deep research” with which it has been supported by Zani, and some of the arguments which have been alleged in its favour by Mr. Ottley.