bound by Cornelis, have been found Donatus leaves of primitive Dutch printing.

Another piece of Dutch testimony which, however, favors the claims of Mainz, appears in a manuscript chronicle, written between 1 5 I 5 and I 52o by an anony- mous Benedictine monk in the monastery at Egmond, a town about twenty miles from Haarlem. From internal evidence it is apparent that he was personally acquainted in Haarlem. Yet he apparently knows nothing regarding the invention of printing there, for he writes: “In the year 14.40 the printing of books took place at l\/Iainz and Joannes Fust was undoubtedly the inventor of that art.”

This is the extent of the historical record pro and con on which rests the case of Haarlem. Bear in mind that the first statement of any kind, either in manuscript or print, connecting the name of Coster with the invention of printing is dated over one hundred years after the event. There are other weaknesses in the story which have not been adequately emphasized in discussions of the sub- ject. In the first place, the earliest lVIainz printing, of which we have a multitude of examples, was notin the types of the primitive Dutch printing. The Doctrinale of Alexander Gallus (otherwise known as Alexander de Villa Dei) and the Petrus Hispanus tract mentioned in the Junius account are not known to have been printed in Mainz types, but are known to have been printed in the types of the early Dutch typographer or typographers.

Attempts have been made to discredit the Junius record on printing because he recorded a legend of Loosduinen, according to which Countess Margarethe