Page images
PDF
EPUB

CLXXXIX. 1496. PAMPELUNA, Petri de Castrarle sup. Lib. Yconom. Arist. fol. Pr. Arnoldus Guillen.

CXC. 1497. GRANADA, Franc. Ximenes de vita Christiana. fol. Pr. Menardus Ungut.

CXCI. 1497. AVIGNON, Luciani Palinurus, etc.4to. Pr. Nicol. Lepe. CXCII. 1497. CARMAGNOLE, Facini Tiberga in Alex. de Villa interpretatio. fol. No Printer's name.

CXCI. 1497. TUBINGEN, Lectura Fr. Pauli in primum senten. fol. Pr. Joan. Ottmar.

CXCIV. 1499. TREGUIER (in Bretagne), the Catholicon, in Bre-
ton, French, and Latin. fol. No Printer's name.
CXCV. 1499. MONTSERRAT, Missale Benedictinum. fol. Pr.
Joan. Luchner Alemannus.

CXCVI. 1499. TARRAGONA, Missale Tarraconense. fol. Pr. Joh. de Rosembach.

CXCVII. 1500. CRACOW, Ciceronis Rhetor. Lib. IV. 4to. Pr. (Joannes Haller.)

cxcvi. 1500. MUNICH, Ang. Mundii Oratio. 4to. Pr. Joannes Schobser.

CXCIX. (1500.) AMSTERDAM, Dionysius de Conversione Peccatoris. 8vo. Pr. D. Pietersoen.

cc. 1500. Olmutz, Aug. de Olomvoz contra Waldenses. 4to. Pr. Conradus Bomgathem.

CCI. 1500. PFORTZHEIM (in Suabia), Joan. Altenstaig Vocabularius. Pr. Thomas Anselmus Badensis.

CCII. 1500. PERPIGNAN, Breviarium Elnense. 8vo. Pr. J. Rosembach de Heidelberg.

CCIII. (1500.) JAEN (or Gien, in the department of Loiret), Petri Dagui tractatus de Differentiis. Printer's name unknown. CCIV. (1475.) SAVILLANO, Manipulus Curatorum, fol. Pr. Christ. Beggiamo and J. Glein.

CCV. (1500.) ALBIA, Enea Sylvii de amoris remedio. 4to. No Printer's name.

CCVI. (1500.) RHENEN, Dat Leeven van H. Maget, S. Kunera. 4to. No Printer's name.

ccvii. (1500.) AmSTERDAM, Dionysius de Conversione Peccatoris. Svo. Pr. D. Pieterson.

Of the following places, the impressions related by some Bibliographers, are by Santander considered as apocryphal. The printers' names and dates are given from Mattaire and Panzer, where they could be ascertained.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Ortona, in the kingdom of Naples, Judæi Soncinates.

1496.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

§ 1.-Establishment of Printing in Westminster and London, by W. Caxton, and his Successors.

ALL our historians and other writers, who flourished in or near the time when typography was discovered, and who mention the intro

duction of the art into England, unanimously ascribe that honour to William Caxton, citizen and mercer, of London. His claim continued undisputed, for nearly two centuries, until the year 1642; when a dispute arose between some persons, who printed by virtue of a patent from the crown, and the Company of Stationers, respecting the patents. A committee was appointed, who heard counsel for and against the petitioners; and in the course of the pleadings Caxton was acknowledged incontestibly as the first printer in England. A small volume however was discovered soon after the Restoration, in the public library at Cambridge, purporting to be printed at Oxford in 1468; and which, by some antiquarians, is considered as a decisive proof that the art of printing was exercised in that University, several years before it was practised at any other place in England.

The book is a small quarto, containing fortyone leaves, with this title: Exposicio Sancti Jeronimi in Simbolum Apostolorum ad Papam Laurentium. And at the end, Explicit exposicio, &c. Impressa Oxonie et finita Anno Domini M.CCCC.LXVIII. xvii die Decembris. But this date, as will be shewn in a subsequent page, is an error for M.CCCC.LXXVIII. and consequently the book could not have been printed by Corsellis.

N

The claim of Corsellis to the introduction of printing was not asserted till the year 1664; when Richard Atkyns, a patentee under the crown for printing, having a dispute with the Stationers' Company, attempted to deprive Caxton of that honour in a thin quarto volume, intituled: "The Original and Growth of Printing, collected out of History and the Records of the Kingdome: wherein is also demonstrated, that Printing appertaineth to the Prerogative Royal, and is a Flower of the Crown of England. By Richard Atkyns, Esq." The design of this pamphlet was to give the right and title of printing to the crown, and by that means to ascertain the validity of the patents which had been granted by the crown. To support this argument, Atkyns pretended to have received of an anonymous friend, a copy of an antient record, which had been discovered at Lambeth House, in the registry of the archiepiscopal see. The substance of this Lambeth record (which is pompously written) may thus be briefly stated. King Henry VI. at the suggestion of archbishop Bourchier, having determined to introduce the art of printing into England, and knowing that it could not be effected without great secrecy and a considerable sum of money, he appropriated first 1000 marks, and afterwards 500 more, to which the archbishop

added 300 marks in aid of the expense. Mr. Robert Turnour, then master of the robes to the king, was appointed commissioner; he took with him William Caxton, who being a trader to Holland, afforded a good pretence for the journey. Accordingly, they accomplished their object; Frederick Corseillis (or Corsellis), one of the under-workmen, stole off from Haerlem in disguise, and was first brought to London, whence he was sent to Oxford under a strong guard, until he had accomplished his engagement of communicating the art of printing.

On the authority of this pretended record, most of our later writers have declared Corsellis to be the first printer in England: but several weighty objections to its evidence have been brought by Dr. Middleton, which we think conclusive against Corsellis, and consequently in favour of Caxton. They are deduced, first from the suppositious record, and secondly from au examination of the book itself.

FIRST, AS TO THE RECORD.

1. The fact is laid quite wrong as to time; near the end of Henry the Sixth's reign, in the very heat of the civil wars, when it is not credible that a prince, struggling for life as well as his crown, should have leisure or disposition to attend to a project, which could hardly be

« PreviousContinue »