There are only two pieces of evidence of the first class. One is the Helmasperger document, a notary’s document concerning the law suit which Fust brought against Gutenberg in 1455. A close examination of this document would appear to show that it tells rather against than in favor of Gutenberg. It appears to show conclusively that Gutenberg had not done any printing before 1450, and had not at that time even made the tools with which to print. In this document Fust speaks of “the work” and “our common work.” Gutenberg speaks of “tools” in preparation. Clearly he is borrowing money in order to make tools. He speaks further of “servants’ wages, house rent, vellum, paper, ink, etc.” and of “the work of the books.” The judges speak of “the work to the profit of both of them,” “their common use,” and the like. There is not a word which speaks distinctly of an invention. It is true that the argument from silence is always dangerous and that those who believe that Gutenberg invented printing could easily read between the lines of this document references to the invention. To one who approaches the subject with an open mind, however, the language is rather that of one who enters into partnership for the carrying on of a business enterprise which is understood by both parties and from which both expect to receive profit rather than that of the man who undertakes to finance an inventor for a share in the invention. The other piece of evidence of the first class is the letters patent by which Adolph II appointed Gutenberg one of the officers of his court. The document states that the appointment is made for “agreeable and voluntary service rendered to us and our bishopric.” It has been argued that as Gutenberg was not a soldier this agreeable and voluntary service must have been the invention of printing. Surely this is a violent assumption. If we believe that Gutenberg invented printing, we may perhaps see in these words a reference to the invention, although we then marvel why so epoch-making an accomplishment was not specifically mentioned. It is difficult, however, to see why an unconvinced person should be expected to see in such a statement as this any evidence that Gutenberg had invented printing. Certainly there are many other kinds of service which might well have been rendered by one of whom we know so little as we do of Gutenberg.