We have a few bits of evidence of the second and third class which bear upon this subject and confirm our conclusions. Jean Le Robert, Abbot of Cambray, says in his diary that he bought in 1446 and 1451 copies of the Doctrinale of Alexander Gallus printed from type. Certainly no Doctrinales were printed from type in Mainz as early as 1446, although we know that the Costeriana include Doctrinales in eight editions which may well have gone back to 1451. The opponents of the Haarlem theory claim that the Abbot refers to Doctrinales printed from blocks but we have no knowledge of the existence of any Doctrinales so made, and the term by which he describes them is a term which from the beginning has been specifically applied to the making of type and could not be applied to the making of blocks. Presumably the Abbot knew what he was talking about and told the truth. Hadrianus Junius, in 1568, tells the story of Coster and the birch bark letters as we have previously told it. It is not necessary to repeat the story, but it is interesting to note certain features of it. Junius says that Coster printed his leaves on one side, pasting two together to avoid the recurrence of alternate blank pages. He further says that he saw one or two of Coster’s books thus made. He claims that he got the story in his youth from his tutor, Nicholas Gaal, a very aged man, but of good memory, who said that in his boyhood he had heard a certain Cornelis, a book binder, then eighty years old, tell the story of Coster’s invention and his struggles to perfect it, including the use of one side of the paper and of several different materials for type. The Burgomaster of Haarlem, Quirinius Talesius, admitted to Junius that in his youth Cornelis had told him the same story, and it is interesting to note in this connection that some of the Costeriana fragments are found in bindings made by this same Cornelis. One more evidence which, like that of Junius, falls into the third class remains to be cited. In 1499 Koelhoff published the Cologne Chronicle in which he speaks of the invention of printing, using as his authority Ulrich Zell, a printer of the Mainz school, who settled in Cologne. He says that Zell told him that “the art of printing was first found at Mainz, but in the manner as it was then (1499) practiced; the first prefiguration, however, the beginning of that at Mainz, was found in Holland from the Donatuses which had been printed in that country before.” Certainly this is not an attribution of the invention of printing either to Mainz or to Gutenberg. It is a distinct confession that it is only the sort of work then being done which was invented at Mainz and that it was suggested by work brought from Holland. It entirely agrees with the Junius account above quoted.