Ulricus Helmasperger, Notary.
The suit brought by Fust was, apparently, a surprise, for it cannot be supposed that Gutenberg would have been so completely unprepared to meet his obligation if he had not been led to believe that Fust would postpone the collection of his claim. The enforcement of this claim before the book was published, or at least before money had been derived from its sale—taken in connection with the facts that the delay in the publication of the book, and Gutenberg's inability to pay his debt, were largely due to the delay of Fust in furnishing the money as he had promised—seems to warrant the charge that Fust meditated the despoilment of Gutenberg at the formation of the partnership. Gutenberg's defense before the court was very feeble: it is that of a man who knew he had no hope of success. He did not appear in person, but trusted his case to his workmen. Fust was more adroit; he was voluble and positive, and his relative, Jacob Fust, was one of the judges. But the fates were against Gutenberg: the hard terms of the contract he had signed compelled an adverse decision.
That Fust did Gutenberg a grievous wrong is very plain; that Gutenberg had managed the business of the partnership with economy and intelligence is not so clear. At no period of his life did the great inventor show any talent for financial administration. He was certainly deficient in many qualities that should be possessed by a man of business, and Fust may have thought that he was fully justified in placing his money
- ↑ Hessels' translation, as printed in the Haarlem Legend, pp. 24 and 25.
