The foregoing is the only evidence in favour of Koster's claims. Conjectures and explanations have been given in abundance, but no further coufirmatiou. No production of Koster's has been satisfac torily discovered, for the Horarium,' found by Enschedius, a letter founder and priutcr at Haarlem, of which he published a fac-aimile in 1768, was, there can he little doubt, a forgery. It is true that the civic records of Haarlem prove that a Lawrence Janezoon lived there at the period mentioned, indeed there were three of the name between 1420 and 1990, one of whom was Koster, a sexton of St. Baron's, and another is distinguished as a rioter, but no entry in proof of any connection with printing. Let us therefore examine the credibility of the narrative as given by Junius. The first thing that must strike any one acquainted with printing is the unfitness of beech-bark as a material for wooden types. Scriverius, who wrote in 1629, feeling this varies the story : he says it was "a small bough of a beech or rather of an oak-tree." It however does not matter much, as Junius goes on to say that he afterwards made his types of lead or pewter. Here then was the invention complete. He is afterwards robbed of the implements of his trade by one of his workmen, who escapee to Amsterdam, and thence to Cologne, and lastly to Mainz, where he establishes his press. What did this workman steal? the materials of a printing-office, the presses and types, even in that early stage of printing, must have been bulky and weighty, could not have been moved with any great facility, and could have been easily traced and followed. If he only stole the matrices, with the knowledge which he had acquired, that was no reason for Koster's abandoning an art which Juniva says was prospering. The name of the workman was Johu, and Junius implies that he at least has no doubt it was Fust ; he only refrains from discussing the matter because he does "not wish to disturb the dead already enduring the pangs of conscience for what they had done when living." Aa however it became clear that Fust could not have been the man, the supporters of Kosterai claims concluded that it must have been Gutenberg; and when again it was proved by undeniable documents that Gutenberg could not have been in Haarlem at the time, they invented a brother for Gutenberg, also of the name of John. Junius was told the story by Nicholas Galan,
who had it from Cornelius, the old bookbinder, Cornelius it is ascer tained died in 1522, at least ninety years old. In 1440, which would be the date 128 years before the time of Junius'a writing, he would therefore be perhaps a little more than eight years old, yet he was at that age an assistant in the printing office, and slept with the criminal. It is also ascertained that Koater the sexton died about 1440, and as the journeyman thief had been some time acquiring his knowledge, it must have been abont 1441 that the robbery took place, yet Cornelius says nothing of his master's death. Meerman, who supports Koster's claim, to obviate this objection, makes the business to have been carried on by Koeter's grandchildren, but of this there is no record, nor are any of their productions extant. Finally, Junius, who was a learned man, had been dead twelve years when his book was published. It is not improbable that the whole passage may be an interpolation made by Borne one desirous to advance the reputation of Haarlem.
It is needless to mention the names of the writers who have sup ported the claims of Haarlem. Ottley and T. F. Dibdin were the last in England, and indeed they are now given up generally. J. Wetter, in his Kritische Geschichte der Erfindung des Buchdruckerkunst,' published at Mainz, in 1S36, boasts that he has completely disposed of all its pretensions ; and he is equally positive against all the claims advanced by other places, such as Cologne, and even with regard to Strasbourg, after using Sehopflin's discoveries as to the progress Guten berg had made at Strasbourg [Guaastisnol, be turns round in an appendix, and endeavours to prove that Sc opflin, in order to exalt his own city, had interpolated the passages in the legal process in which the technical terms relating to the printing art were used ; that Drytzehen was a manufacturer of metal mirrors, the forms being moulds into which tho metal was poured; and that the moveable pieces (stticke) were wooden ornaments for the frames. He also asserts that Gutenberg's first books were produced from solid wooden blocks; that then the letters were sawn asunder and thus used, the letters being threaded together in lines; and that he subsequently discovered the method of casting types.