“We cannot wish for a more decisive and competent criticism of the story of Junius than this, given by a Haarlemer and a Costerian; for Junius represents Coster as having printed the Speculum in Dutch with wooden types; he makes him, in other words, do something impossible, ridiculous, and chimerical. It is true that the wooden types have been patronized until our times; that Camus has given a specimen of printing with wooden types of two lines, Wetter of one column, Schinkel of half a page; that we are able to do much more with the means of the nineteenth than with those of the fifteenth century; but none of those specimens have proved what they should have proved; the practicability of printing a book with moveable wooden letters, _i. e._ to distribute the forms, to clean the ink from the letters, to submit them to frequent strong pressing, and to retain the usefulness of the letters employed, and without the aid of modern apparatus. They have only proved what men are willing to do for a favorite opinion, for a prejudice which they _insist_, for once and all, ought to be _true_.”... “It is high time for criticism to make a fire of these imaginary wooden letters.” Determined that the advocates of wooden letters shall be beaten completely out of the field, the Dr. adds, in a note upon Schinkel in the above quotation. “In a brochure entitled ‘Tweetal Bijdragen,’ Schinkel gives some ‘experiments’ of his foreman H. le Blansch, namely, seven lines, printed with types of palm wood. The xylotypographic text runs:--‘That the first Dutch _Spiegel onzer Behoudenis_ was printed with cast types, is not to be doubted. Is it possible to print a book of some extension with _moveable_ letters cut of wood? YES.--Le Blansch, _sculp._’ This YES is an unproved dictum, the contrary of which is evident already from the dancing lines of the experiment. Let a _book_ be produced printed with moveable wooden letters, instead of all those experiments which signify nothing.... But apart from all this Costerian talk, the question may not be put as Schinkel did, but simply: Were ever books printed with moveable wooden letters? No.”--pp. 72-73. It may however be retorted upon the Dr. that his No! is also an improved dictum. But he says again, pages 78 and 79:--