Neither in the evidence quoted, nor in any portion of the rest of the depositions, is anything said about ‘types’ or ‘letters.’ Mr. Humphreys, adopting the conjecture first made by M. Paul Lacroix, argues, that the evidence about looking-glasses to be manufactured, and the partners terming themselves looking-glass makers, is to be understood as meaning that they purposely adopted that term as a ruse to conceal the true meaning of their work, which was, in fact, the manufacture or printing of ‘Mirrors of Salvation.’ But this view can hardly be considered tenable, inasmuch as Anthonie Heilman shews, that his brother first entered into the partnership to learn the Art of making looking-glasses; and that it was not until afterwards--“a long time afterwards”--that the new arrangement was entered into about the _remaining work_,--“THE ART,”--the secret, in fact, for which they were to consider themselves beholden to Gutenberg alone, and not to Riffe. And this was the view the magistrates took. In their summing up of the case, they very distinctly state, that after having for several years taught Andrew Dritzehen the art of polishing stones, Gutenberg admitted him and Andrew Heilman as partners in a manufactory of looking-glasses, _which articles he and John Riffe had before been accustomed to sell at the fairs at Aix-la-Chapelle_; and that it was not until one year, when the fair had been unexpectedly put off until the year following, that Gutenberg agreed to reveal to them _all_ the wonderful and secret arts that he knew, without any exception. The magistrates also referred to the evidence adduced as to various purchases, some or one of which was deposed to be of _lead_; and from this it may be inferred that the lead was intended for the manufacture of type. But there is nothing to shew that either Riffe or Dritzehen or Heilman was entrusted with the secret of the separable letters. If however, metal types had been the secret to be preserved, the fact of their being so would surely have somehow been more or less distinctly stated. But it was the four ‘stücke’ under the press,--fixed or fastened by two ‘wurbelin,’ which, when opened, and the ‘stücke’ disjoined and separated one from the other, no one would understand the meaning of,--as well as the ‘formen,’--that were the cause of Gutenberg and Heilman’s great anxiety. These four ‘stücke’ were certainly not four pages, or a forme of types, fastened together by two screws, which is the interpretation given, with a note of interrogation attached, by writers of repute, whose minds appear to have been so filled with the importance of the separable types, that they have failed to see how the word ‘stücke’ could apply to anything else in connection with printing. Had pages of type been meant, their being separated,--either by being ‘distributed’ into type-cases, or ‘thrown into pye,’ as it is technically called,--would not have effected the object of the direction given,