The extraordinary number of duplicate and triplicate (logographs) as well as ligatured letters, that are made use of in the _Speculum_, has already been referred to. Mr. Ottley considers that they are a proof of the antiquity of that work; but in that direction they only exhibit a peculiarity which is not observable in other works: they furnish however a strong argument in proof of the types of the _Speculum_ having been cut in wood. For, taking into account the limited number of letters required for that work (printed but two pages at a time), to cut _ninety_ separate punches, and to strike the same number of matrices, when one-third of that number would suffice, was a gratuitous waste of labour; whereas, in cutting wooden types sufficient for the composition of two pages, a great saving of time would be effected by duplicating and triplicating as many characters as possible; and not only would time and labour be thus saved, but the types themselves, by being double or treble the thickness of single letters, would be so much the stronger and more durable. But, say certain writers, amongst whom is Wetter: “It is impossible to print with such small wooden types” as those used in the _Speculum_.[122] Now Wetter’s object was to shew that the _Speculum_ was of a much later date than is attributed to it by Dutch authorities,[123] and he argues that the types used must have been metal, although Meerman insists upon it that they were of wood. It is singular that Wetter should have committed himself to such a statement, when in Tab. II. of his work he has printed a whole column from wooden-types, some of which are of the same size as those in the _Speculum_. Possibly he considered that the numerous hair strokes, and particularly those which front the capital A and the minuscule t, (peculiarities found only in letters of the _Speculum_ school) were too fragile to withstand the pressure of printing.