In several of the cuts, the typical expressions which occur in the texts are explained. Thus, in cut eighth, we are informed that “_Stolæ albæ animarum gloriam designant_.”--“The white vestments denote the glory of departed souls.” In the lower compartment of the same cut, the “_cæli recessio_”--“the opening of the heavens”--is explained to be the communication of the Bible to the Gentiles. In the lower compartment of the ninth cut, “much incense” is said to signify the precepts of the Gospel; the “censers,” the hearts of the Apostles; and the “golden altar,” the Church. The next block-book which demands notice is that named “Historia seu Providentia Virginis Mariæ, ex Cantico Canticorum:” that is, “The History or Prefiguration of the Virgin Mary, from the Song of Songs.” It is of small-folio size, and consists of sixteen leaves, printed on one side only by means of friction; and the ink is of a dark brown, approaching nearly to black. Each impressed page contains two subjects, one above the other; the total number of subjects in the book is, consequently, thirty-two. Of this book, according to the observations of Heineken, there are two editions; which, from variations noticed by him in the explanatory text, are evidently from different blocks; but, as the designs are precisely the same, it is certain that the one has been copied from the other.[II-41] That which he considers to be the first edition, has, in his opinion, been engraved in Germany; the other, he thinks, was a copy of the original, executed by some engraver in Holland. The principal ground on which he determines the priority of the editions is, that in the one the text is much more correctly given than in the other; and he thence concludes that the most correct would be the second. In this opinion I concur; not that his rule will universally hold good, but that in this case the conclusion which he has drawn seems the most probable. The designs, it is admitted, are precisely the same; and as the cuts of the one would in all probability be engraved from tracings or transfers of the other, it is not likely that we should find such a difference in the text of the two editions if that of the first were correct. A wood-engraver--on this point I speak from experience--would be much more likely to commit literal errors in copying manuscript, than to deviate in cutting a fac-simile from a correct impression. Had the text of the first edition been correct,--considering that the designs of the one edition are exact copies of those of the other,--it is probable that the text of both would have been more nearly alike. But as there are several errors in the text of the first edition, it is most likely that many of them would be discovered and corrected by the person at whose instance the designs were copied for the second. Diametrically opposite to this conclusion is that of Mr. Ottley, who argues as follows:[II-42] “Heineken endeavours to draw another argument in favour of the