“What!” exclaims OTTLEY, “are the fragments of _Donatuses_, found _in Holland_, and printed in the same type as the Speculum, to be considered as no evidence whatever of early printing _in that country_,” &c., &c., &c.--_Invention of Printing_, p. 117. “_Coster was the first_ to use moveable [cast metal] types.... This view is not only supported by one of the earliest writers on the subject, but by ... Ulric Zell,” who says “Item: although this art was discovered at Mentz at first in the manner in which it is now commonly used, _yet the first example of it was found in Holland_,” &c.--BLADES’S _Life, &c. of W. Caxton_, vol. i. p. 59. [109] After enumerating several works “printed with what may be termed Kosterian types,” Mr. HUMPHREYS says:--“Thus it is proved, not only that Koster is not a myth invented by the Dutch to glorify themselves, and that the ‘Speculum’ is not an isolated and unauthenticated monument; but that there was in all probability, a Koster (_and if not, some other native of Holland_) who was the printer of at least three out of the four editions of the ‘Speculum,’ and that his family successors, or pupils and workmen, continued to print in the same style after his death.”--_Hist. of Art of Printing_, p. 65. “The third edition [of the Speculum] has a much more important character than the second, being a Dutch translation in prose, printed by the same double process as the preceding, all the text being typographic, and only printed on one side of the paper. The issue of this edition (evidently from the same establishment), in the Dutch language, is an all sufficient proof of the celebrated ‘Speculum’ being beyond doubt, the production of a Dutch artisan, or rather artist, _and if so, why not of Koster?_”--_Ib._ p. 63. [110] Baron Heinecken, Santander, and others, assign a German origin to them.