“The printer, or his successor, as has been said, having been deprived of the type hitherto used in the work, printed the two pages wanting to complete his Dutch edition with the remains of some old type, a little different, which had previously been thrown aside, as no longer fit for use. But in doing it, he experienced, perhaps, more trouble than he anticipated; and as twenty pages, instead of two, were wanting to complete the second Latin edition, he now bethought himself of another mode of procedure. Having taken from a copy of the first Latin edition the ten sheets containing the twenty pages wanting to complete the second edition, and having corrected with a pen a letter here and there misprinted, he delivered those sheets to a wood engraver, with directions to copy them exactly; and the engraver executed the commission, by first glueing these ten sheets with their face downwards upon ten prepared blocks of wood (according to the method then used), then, rendering the paper transparent by oil or otherwise, and lastly, by cutting away the wood around the letters.” The whole of the last of these paragraphs, it is to be remembered, is purely conjectural; there is not the slightest foundation for it, beyond the necessity for thus accounting for a certain fact, and making that fact dove-tail in with the writer’s theory that the edition with twenty-pages of xylographic text was the second, and not the first; a theory which equally able writers, writers too on the Costerian side of the controversy, deny; maintaining, with a better show of reason on their side, that the xylographic edition was the first. But apart from this consideration, _if the twenty pages engraved on blocks, are fac-simile imitations_ of the twenty corresponding pages in the other Latin edition, what are we to think of Mr. Ottley’s previous assertion, that in these identical pages, there is “_throughout, a sensible difference of form as well as dimensions_ between the various repetitions of the same letter; _and in the capital letters especially, this difference is material_.”? Both statements cannot be correct; and how they are to be reconciled I know not. After confessing that the changes of opinion he had previously described were those which had taken place in his own mind, Mr. Ottley proceeds:--