The reasoning faculties of Signor Zani appear to have been very imperfectly developed, for he cites the following as a case in point; and Mr. Ottley, who gives it in his text, seems to concur in its applicability. He is noticing the objections which have been made to Papillon’s account, on the ground of no previous author mentioning the existence of such a work, and that no person subsequently had ever seen a copy. Zani’s argument, as given by Mr. Ottley,[I-44] is as follows: “He, however, who should reason in this manner, might, upon the same grounds, deny the loss of many manuscripts, and even of printed books, which, according to the testimony of credible authors, have become a prey to the flames, or have perished during the anarchy of revolutions, or the distresses occasioned by wars. The learned part of my readers will not require examples. Nevertheless, let him who wants such conviction search throughout all the libraries of Europe for the work entitled ‘Meditationes Reverendissimi patris Domini Johannis de Turre-cremata,’ printed at Rome by Ulrich Hahn, in 1467, and he will presently be informed by the learned librarians, that of that edition there exists but one copy, which is preserved in the library of Nuremberg. This book is, therefore, unique.[I-45] Now let us suppose that, by some accident, this book should perish; could our descendants on that account deny that it ever had existed?” And this is a corroborative argument in support of the truth of Papillon’s tale! The comment, however, is worthy of the text. It is to be observed that Ulrich Hahn’s edition of Turre-cremata appeared ten years after Faust and Scheffer’s Psalter, of the date 1457, was printed; and that the existence of several hundred volumes printed before 1467 proves that the art of printing was then practised to a considerable extent. That Ulrich Hahn was a printer at Rome in 1468 and subsequent years is proved by many copies of works which proceeded from his press; and the existence of the identical “unique” copy, referred to by Zani, is vouched for by upwards of fifty learned men who have seen it; and, what is more, mentioned the place where it was preserved, so that, if a person were sceptical, he might satisfy himself by the evidence of his own senses. But who, except Papillon, has ever seen the engravings of the Cunio, executed upwards of a hundred and thirty years prior to the earliest authentic specimen of the art, and who has ever mentioned the place where they were to be seen? Had any person of equal credibility with Papillon described a volume printed at Rome in 1285, the date of the pretended wood-cuts of the Cunio, the case would then have been in point, and the decision of every person in the slightest degree acquainted with the subject, and not rendered blind to simple truth by the vivid brightness of his own speculations, would be inevitably the same; that is, the evidence in both cases would not be relied on.