heirs, we have given to the said nuns, and to their convent and order, the present letters sealed with our seals. Signed and delivered, the year of the birth of J. C. 1459, on the day of St. Margaret.” (July 20). To this document four seals were attached inscribed-- _S: hans genszfleisch vo Sorgeloch S: friele genszfleisch vo......loch S: hen............sch vo Sulgeloch frile genszfleisch._ Contradicting, as this agreement does, the views held by Mr. Ottley, he says, “I confess I have great doubts of its genuineness, though perhaps they are ill-founded.” M. Ph. Berjeau,[79] in his introduction to Mr. Ottley’s work asserts that it is a forgery; and on the authority of M. de Laborde says, “that Bodman, the Archivist of Mentz, bothered by Oberlin, Fischer, and all the bibliographers of his time, who wanted him to discover some new information about Gutenberg, thought it worth his while to forge two documents, which just helped them to fill the two gaps which occur in his history, one from 1420 to 1430, the other from 1455 to 1460.” The other document referred to by M. de Laborde is that already given in the note on pages 71 and 72. But it has already been shewn from contemporary authorities in Italy and France, that Gutenberg was known in those countries to be still printing at Mentz in 1458. The motive imputed to M. Bodman as an inducement to the criminal act charged against him by MM. Laborde and Berjeau, cannot therefore be correct. Writers on both sides, in their eagerness to confute their opponents, are much too apt to cry out “forgery!” when documents are quoted which are fatal to their pre-conceived views. There is however one point in this agreement which needs explanation.