HISTORY OF PRINTING

HISTORY OF PRINTING. Some writers have ascribed the origin of this art to the East, and affixed a very early period to its invention; particularly P. Jovius, (Hist. lib. xiv. p. 226. ed. Florent. 1550.) from whom Orosius and many others have embraced the same opinion. But these have evidently confounded the European mode of printing, with the engraved tablets which to this day are used in China. The invention of these tablets has been ascribed by many writers even to an earlier period than the commencement of the Christian era; but is with more probability assigned, by the very accurate Phil. Couplet, to the year 930. The Historia Sinensis of Abdalla, written in Persic in 1317, speaks of it as an art in very common use. MEERMAN, vol. i. p. 16. 218, 219. vol. ii. p. 186. N.

The honour of having given rise to the European method has been claimed by the cities of Haerlem, Mentz, and Strasburg. And to each of these it may be ascribed in a qualified sense, as they made improvements upon one another.

I. The first testimony of the inventor is that recorded by Hadrian Junius, in his Batavia, p. 253, ed. Lugd. Bat. 1588; which, though it hath been rejected by many, is of undoubted authority. Junius had the relation from two reputable men; Nicolaus Galius (A), who was his schoolmaster; and Quirinius Talefius, his intimate and correspondent. He ascribes it to LAURENTIUS, the son of John (Aeditus, or Custos, of the cathedral at HARLEIM, at that time a respectable office), upon the testimony of Cornelius, some time a servant to Laurentius, and afterwards bookbinder to the cathedral, an office which had before been performed by Franciscan friars. His narrative was thus: "That, walking in a wood near the city (as the citizens of opulence use to do), he began at first to cut some letters upon the rind of a beach-tree; which, for fancy's sake, being impressed on paper, he printed one or two lines, as a specimen for his grand-children (the sons of his daughter) to follow. This having

Printing. happily succeeded, he meditated greater things (as he was a man of ingenuity and judgment); and first of all, with his son-in-law Thomas Peter (who, by the way, left three sons, who all attained the consular dignity), invented a more glutinous writing-ink, because he found the common ink sunk and spread; and then formed whole pages of wood, with letters cut upon them; of which sort I have seen some essays, in an anonymous work, printed only on one side, intitled, Speculum nostra salutis; in which it is remarkable, that in the infancy of printing (as nothing is complete at its first invention) the back sides of the pages were pasted together, that they might not by their nakedness betray their deformity. These beached letters he afterwards changed for leaden ones, and these again for a mixture of tin and lead [stannum] as a less flexible and more solid and durable substance. Of the remains of which types, when they were turned to waste metal, those old wine-pots were cast, that are still preserved in the family-house, which looks into the market-place, inhabited afterwards by his great grandson Gerard Thomas, a gentleman of reputation; whom I mention for the honour of the family, and who died old a few years since. A new invention never fails to engage curiosity. And when a commodity never before seen excited purchasers, to the advantage of the inventor; the admiration of the art increased, dependents were enlarged, and workmen multiplied, the first calamitous incident! Among these was one John, whether, as we suspect, he had omniously the name of Faustus (B), unfaithful and unlucky to his master, or whether it was really a person of that name, I shall not much inquire; being unwilling to molest the silent shades, who suffer from a consciousness of their past actions in this life. This man, bound by oath to keep the secret of printing, when he thought he had learned the art of joining the letters, the method of casting the types, and other things of that nature, taking the most convenient time that was possible, on Christmas-eve, when every one was customarily employed in funeral sacrifices, seizes the collection of types, and all the implements his master had got together, and, with one accomplice, marches off to Amsterdam, thence to Cologne, and at last settled at Mentz, as at an asylum of security, where he might go to work with the tools he had stolen. It is certain, that in a year's time, viz. in 1442, the Doctrinale of Alexander Gallus, which was a grammar much used at that time, together with the Tracts of Peter of Spain, came forth there, from the same types as Laurentius had made use of at Harleim.

Thus far the narrative of Junius, which he had frequently heard from Nicolaus Galius; to whom it was related by Cornelius himself, who lived to a great age, and used to burst into tears upon reflecting on the less his master had sustained, not only in his substance, but in his honour, by the roguery of his servant, his former associate and bedfellow. Cornelius, as appears by the registers of Harleim cathedral, died either in 1515, or the beginning of the following year; so that he might very well give this information to Ni-

colaus Galius, who was school-master to Hadrian Junius.

Though this circumstance is probable as to the main fact, yet we must set aside the evidence of it in some particulars. 1. The first obvious difficulty is noticed by Scriverius; "that the types are said to be made of the kind of beach, which could not be strong enough to bear the impression of the press." Though this is removed, if, instead of the bark, we substitute a bough of the beach. The idea of the bark, when Junius wrote this, was perhaps strong in his mind, from what Virgil tells us (Ecl. v. 13.) of its being usual to cut words on the bark of a beach; and thence he was easily led to make a wrong application of it here.

2. The letters were at first wooden, and are said to be afterwards exchanged for metal types; from which the wine-pots were formed, remaining in the time of Junius. According to tradition, printing was carried on in the same house long after the time of Laurentius: those pots might therefore be formed from the waste metal of the printing-house, after the use of supple types became universal.—But Laurentius seems to have carried the art no farther than separate wooden types. What is a remarkable confirmation of this, Henry Spiechel, who wrote, in the 16th century, a Dutch poem intitled Hertspiegel, expresses himself thus: "Thou first, Laurentius, to supply the defect of wooden tablets, adaptedst wooden types, and afterwards didst connect them with a thread, to imitate writing. A treacherous servant surreptitiously obtained the honour of the discovery. But truth itself, though destitute of common and wide-spread fame; Truth, I say, still remains." No mention in the poem of metal types; a circumstance which, had he been robbed of such, as well as of wooden ones, would scarcely have been passed over in silence.

When Laurentius first devised his rough specimen of the art, can only be guessed at. He died in 1440, after having published the Speculum Belgicum, and two editions of Donatus, all with different wooden types; which it is probable (considering the difficulties he had to encounter, and the many artists whom he must necessarily have had occasion to consult) cost him some years to execute; so that the first essay might be about 1430, which nearly agrees with Petrus Scriverius, who says the invention was about 10 or 12 years before 1440. See LAURENTIUS.

3. What was the specimen he first diverted himself with in cutting, at the distance of three centuries, one would think impossible to be discovered. And yet Joh. Enschedius, a printer, thinks he was so happy as to find it, being an old parchment Horarium, printed on both sides, in eight pages, containing the Letters of the Alphabet, the Lord's Prayer, the Apostles Creed, and three short prayers. And Mr Meerman having shown this to proper artists who were judges of these matters, they gave it as their opinion that it agreed exactly with the description of Junius. It is conformable to the first edition of the Dutch Speculum Salvationis, and the fragments of both Donatus's of Holland, both which are the works of the same Laurentius.

Printing. rentius, and were preceded by this. In these types, which are certainly moveable, cut, and uneven, there is a rudeness which Mr Meerman has not observed in any other instances. There are no numbers to the pages, no signatures, no direction-words, no divisions at the end of the lines; on the contrary, a syllable divided in the middle is seen, thus, Spiritu, in p. 8. l. 2, 3. There are neither distinctions nor points, which are seen in the other works of Laurentius; and the letter i is not marked with an accent, but with a dot at the top. The lines throughout are uneven. The shape of the pages not always the same; not (as they should be) rectangular, but sometimes rhomb-like, sometimes an isosceles trapezium; and the performance seems to be left as a specimen both of his piety, and of his ingenuity in this essay of a new invented art. Mr Meerman has given an exact engraving of this singular curiosity.

But, whatever else may appear doubtful in the narrative of Junius, it is very clear, that the first essays of the art are to be attributed to Laurentius, who used only separate wooden types. See the article LAURENTIUS.

II. Some of Laurentius's types were stolen from him by one of his servants (c), John Geinsfleisch senior; who fled therewith to MENZ. Having introduced the art from Harleim into this his native city, he set with all diligence to carry it on; and published in 1442, ALEXANDRI GALLI Doctrinale, and PETRI HISPANI Tractatus; two works, which, being small, best suited his circumstances; and for which, being much used in the schools, he might reasonably expect a profitable sale. They were executed with wooden types, cut after the model of those he had stolen.

In 1443 he hired the house Zum Jungen; and was assisted with money by FUST, a wealthy person, who in return had a share of the business: and about the same time John Meidenbachius was admitted a partner, as were some others whose names are not transmitted to our times; and in 1444 they were joined by GUTENBERG, who for that purpose quitted Strasburg. Wooden types being found not sufficiently durable, and not answering expectation in other respects, the two brothers first invented cut metal types. But while these were preparing, which must have been a work of time, several works were printed, both on wooden separate

(c) Authors differ as to the person who committed this robbery. It is clear from all accounts that his name was John; but what his surname was is the disputed point. Junius, after some hesitation, ascribes it to John Fust; but with injustice: for he was a wealthy man, who assisted the first printers at Mentz with money; and though he afterwards was proprietor of a printing-office, yet he never, as far as appears, performed any part of the business with his own hands, and consequently he could never have been a servant to Laurentius. Nor is the conjecture of Scriverius better founded, which fixes it upon John Gutenberg, who (as appears by authentic testimonies) resided at Strasburg from 1436 to 1444, and during all that period employed much fruitless labour and expence in endeavouring to attain this art. Mr Meerman once thought, "it might be either John Meidenbachius, (who, we are told by Seb. Muncker and the author of Chronographia Meguntinensis, was an assistant to the first Mentz printers); or John Peterheimius (who was some time a servant to Fust and Schoeffer, and set up a printing-house at Francfort in 1439); or, lastly, some other person, who, being unable through poverty to carry on the business, discovered it to Geinsfleisch at Mentz." But more authentic intelligence afterwards convinced him there were two persons of this name; and that John Geinsfleisch senior * was the dishonest servant, who was born at Mentz, and who, in the papers published by Kohlerus, we find there in the year 1441, and not before: for though he was of a good family, yet was he poor, and seems to have been obliged, as well as his brother, to seek his livelihood in a foreign country; and perhaps was content to be under Laurentius, that, when he had learned the art, he might follow it in his own. But, to leave conjecture, we may produce some certain testimonies.

1. It is what Junius himself says, that the person who stole the types did it with a view to set up elsewhere; nor is it likely that he would either make no use of an art he had seen so profitable to Laurentius, or that he would teach it to another and submit to be again a servant.

2. The Lambeth Record (which is printed below, from Mr Atkyns) tells us, that "Mentz gained the art by the brother of one of the workmen of Harleim, who learned it at home of his brother, who after set up for himself at Mentz."—By the strictest examination of the best authorities, it is plain that by these two brothers the two Geinsfleisches must be meant. But as the younger (Gutenberg) was never a servant to Laurentius, it must be the senior who carried off the types, and instructed his brother in the art; who first applied himself to the business at Strasburg, and afterwards joined his elder brother, who had in the mean time settled at Mentz.

What is still stronger, two chronologists of Strasburg, the one named Dan Speklins, the other anonymous (in Meerman's Documenta, n^o LXXXV, LXXXVI), tells us expressly, that John Geinsfleisch (viz. the senior, whom they distinguish from Gutenberg), having learned the art by being servant to its first inventor, carried it by theft into Mentz his native country. They are right in the fact, though mistaken in the application of it; for they make Strasburg the place of the invention, and Mentelius the inventor, from whom the types were stolen. But this is plainly an error: for Geinsfleisch lived at Mentz in 1441, as appears from undoubted testimonies; and could not be a servant to Mentelius, to whom the beforementioned writers ascribe the invention in 1440, tho' more ancient ones do not attempt to prove that he began to print before 1444 or 1447. Nor will the narrative agree better with Gutenberg, who was an earlier printer than Mentelius; since, among the evidences produced by him in his law-suit, 1439, no Geinsfleisch senior appears, nor any other servant but Laurentius Beildek. The narration therefore of the theft of Geinsfleisch, being spread by various reports through the world, and substituting in the time of these chronologists, was applied by them (to serve the cause they wrote for) to Strasburg; but serves to confirm the truth, since no writer derives the printing spoils from any other country than Holland or Alfatia. The chronologists have likewise, instead of Fust, called Gutenberg the wealthy man; who, from all circumstances, appears to have been poor. They also call Schoeffer the son-in-law of Mentelius; when it is clear that he married the daughter of Fust.

Printing. rate types and on wooden blocks; which were well adapted to small books of frequent use, such as the Tabula Alphabetica, the Catholicum, Donati Grammatica, and the Confessionalia.

From the abovementioned printers in conjunction, after many smaller essays, the Bible was published in 1450, with large cut metal types (d). And it is no wonder, considering the immense labour this work cost, that it should be seven or eight years in completing. In this same year the partnership was dissolved, and a new one entered into, in August, between Fust and Gutenberg; the former supplying the money, the latter skill, for their common benefit. Various difficulties arising, occasioned a law-suit for the money which Fust had advanced; which was determined against Gutenberg. A dissolution of this partnership ensued in 1455; and in 1457 a magnificent edition of the Psalter was published by Fust and Schoeffer, with a remarkable commendation, in which they assumed to themselves the merit of a new invention, (viz. of metal types), ad inventionem artificiosam imprimendi ac characterizandi. This book was uncommonly elegant, and in some measure the work of Gutenberg; as it was four years in the press, and came out but 18 months after the partnership was dissolved between him and Fust.

The latter continued in possession of the printing-office: and Gutenberg, by the pecuniary assistance of Conrad Humery syndic of Mentz (e), and others, opened another office in the same city; whence appeared, in 1460, without the printer's name, the Catholicum Jo. de Janua, with a pompous colophon in praise of its beauty, and ascribing the honour of the invention to the city of Mentz. It was a very handsome book, though inferior to the Psalter which had been published in 1457 by Fust and Schoeffer. Both the Psalter and Catholicum were printed on cut metal types (f). It may not be improper to observe here, that as the Psalter is the earliest book which is known to have a genuine date, it became a common practice after that publication, for printers to claim their own performances, by adding their names to them.

III. The progress of the art has been thus traced thro' its second period, the invention of cut metal types.

But the honour of completing the discovery is due to PETER SCHOEFFER (g) de Gernheim.

A very clear account of this final completion of the types is preserved by Trithemius (h). Post hæc inventis successerunt subtiliora, invenieruntque modum fundendi formas omnium Latini alphabeti literarum, quas ipsi matrices nominabant: ex quibus rursum aeneos sive stanneos characteres fundebant, ad omnem pressuram sufficientes, quos prius manibus sculpebant. Et revera sicut ante xxx ferme annos ex ore. Petri Opilionis de Gernheim, civis Moguntini, qui gener erat primi artis inventor, auditor, magnam a primo inventionis sue hæc ars impressoria habuit difficultatem.—Petrus autem memoratus Opilio, tunc sumulus postea gener, sicut diximus, inventoris primi, Johannis Fusti, homo ingeniosus et prudens, faciliorem modum fundendi characteres excoigavit, et artem, ut nunc est, complevit.

Another ample testimony in favour of Schoeffer is given by Jo. Frid. Faustus of Aschaffenburg, from papers preserved in his family: "Peter Schoeffer of Gernheim, perceiving his master Fust's design, and being himself ardently desirous to improve the art, found out (by the good providence of God) the method of cutting (incidendi) the characters in a matrix, that the letters might easily be singly cast, instead of being cut. He privately cut matrices for the whole alphabet; and when he showed his master the letters cast from these matrices, Fust was so pleased with the contrivance, that he promised Peter to give him his only daughter, Christina, in marriage; a promise which he soon after performed. But there were as many difficulties at first with these letters, as there had been before with wooden ones; the metal being too soft to support the force of the impression: but this defect was soon remedied, by mixing the metal with a substance which sufficiently hardened it (i)."

Fust and Schoeffer concealed this new improvement, by administering an oath of secrecy to all whom they intrusted, till the year 1462; when, by the dispersion of their servants into different countries, at the sacking of Mentz by the archbishop Adolphus, the invention was publicly divulged.

The first book printed with these improved types was, Durandi Rationale, in 1459; at which time, however, they

Printing. they seem to have had only one size of cast letters, all the larger characters which occur being cut types, as appears plainly by an inspection of the book. From this time to 1466, Fust and Schoeffer continued to print a considerable number of books; particularly two famous editions of Tully's Offices. In their earliest books, they printed more copies on vellum than on paper, which was the case both of their Bibles and Tully's Offices. This, however, was soon inverted; and paper introduced for the greatest part of their impressions: a few only being printed on vellum, for curiosities, and for the purpose of being illuminated. How long Fust lived, is uncertain; but in 1471 we find Schoeffer was in partnership with Conrad Henlif and a kinsman of his master Fust. He published many books after the death of his father-in-law; the last of which that can be discovered is a third edition of the Psalter in 1490, in which the old cut types of the first edition were used.

IV. With regard to the claim of STRASBURG: It has been already mentioned, that Gutenberg was engaged in that city in different employments; and, among others, in endeavouring to attain the art of printing. That these endeavours were unsuccessful, is plain from an authentic judicial decree of the senate of Strasburg in 1439, after the death of Andrew Drizehen (x).

But there are many other proofs that Gutenberg and his partners were never able to bring the art to perfection.

1. Wimpelingius*, the oldest writer in favour of Strasburg, tells us, that Gutenberg was the inventor of "a new art of writing," are impressoria, which might also be called a divine benefit, and which he happily completed at Mentz; but does not mention one book of his printing; though he adds, that Mentelius printed many volumes correctly and beautifully, and acquired great wealth; whence we may conclude that he perfected what Gutenberg had in vain essayed.

2. Wimpelingius, in another book†, tells us, the art of printing was found out by Gutenberg incomplete; which implies, not that he practised the art in an imperfect manner (as Laurentius had done at Harleim), but rather that he had not been able to accomplish what he aimed at.

3. Gutenberg, when he left Strasburg in 1444 or the following year, and entered into partnership with Geinsfleisch senior and others, had occasion for his brother's assistance to enable him to complete the art; which shows that his former attempts at Strasburg had been unsuccessful‡.

4. These particulars are remarkably confirmed by Trithemius, who tells us, in two different places||, that Gutenberg spent all his substance in quest of this art; and met with such insuperable difficulties, that, in despair, he had nearly given up all hopes of attaining it,

(x) Their first attempts were made about 1436, with wooden types. Mr Meerman is of opinion that Geinsfleisch junior (who was of an enterprising genius, and had already engaged in a variety of projects) gained some little insight into the business by visiting his brother who was employed by Laurentius at Harleim, but not sufficient to enable him to practise it. It is certain, that, at the time of the law-suit in 1439, much money had been expended, without any profit having arisen; and the unfortunate Drizehen, in 1438, on his death-bed, lamented to his confessor, that he had been at great expense, without having been reimbursed a single obolus. Nor did Gutenberg (who persisted in his fruitless endeavours) reap any advantage from them; for, when he quitted Strasburg, he was overwhelmed in debt, and under a necessity of selling every thing he was in possession of. [MEERMAN, vol. I. p. 198—202.] All the depositions in the law-suit abovementioned (with the judicial decree) are printed by Mr Meerman, vol. II. p. 58—88. N.

till he was assisted by the liberality of Fust, and by his brother's skill, in the city of Mentz.

5. Ulric Zell says* the art was completed at Mentz; but that some books had been published in Holland earlier than in that city. Is it likely that Zell, who was a German, would have omitted to mention Strasburg, if it had preceded Mentz in printing?

There is little doubt therefore that all Gutenberg's labours at Strasburg amounted to no more than a fruitless attempt, which he was at last under the necessity of relinquishing; and there is no certain proof of a single book having been printed in that city till after the dispersion of the printers in 1462, when Mentelius and Eggekenius successfully pursued the business.

In fine, the pretensions of Strasburg fall evidently to be set aside. And as to the other two cities, Harleim and Mentz, the disputes between them seem easily cleared up, from the twofold invention of printing abovementioned: the first with separate wooden types at Harleim, by Laurentius, about 1430, and after continued by his family; the other with metal types, first cut, and afterwards cast, which were invented at Mentz, but not used in Holland till brought thither Theodoric Martens at Alost about 1472.

From this period printing made a rapid progress in most of the principal towns of Europe. In 1490, it reached Constantinople; and, according to Mr Palmer, p. 281, &c. it was extended, by the middle of the next century, to Africa and America. It was introduced into Russia about 1560: but, from motives either of policy or superstition, it was speedily suppressed by the ruling powers; and, even under the present enlightened empress, has scarcely emerged from its obscurity.—That it was early practised in the inhospitable regions of Iceland, we have the respectable authority of Mr Bryant: "Arngrim Jonas was born amidst the snows of Iceland; yet as much prejudiced in favour of his country as those who are natives of an happier climate. This is visible in his Crymogaa; but more particularly in his Anatome Blefkiniana. I have in my possession this curious little treatise, written in Latin by him in his own country, and printed Typis Holensibus in Islandia Boreali, anno 1612. Hola is placed in some maps within the Arctic circle, and is certainly not far removed from it. I believe, it is the farthest north of any place, where arts and sciences have ever resided." Observations and Inquiries relating to various parts of Ancient History, 1767, p. 277.

Introduction of Printing into Britain. It was a constant opinion, delivered down by our historians, as hath been observed by Dr Middleton, that the Art of Printing was introduced and first practised in England by William Caxton, a mercer and citizen of London; who, by his travels abroad, and a residence of many years in Holland, Flanders, and Germany, in the af-

Printing. fairs of trade, had an opportunity of informing himself of the whole method and process of the art; and by the encouragement of the great, and particularly of the abbot of Westminster, first set up a press in that abbey, and began to print books soon after the year 1471.

This was the tradition of our writers; till a book, which had scarce been observed before the Restoration, was then taken notice of by the curious, with a date of its impression from Oxford, anno 1468 and was considered immediately as a clear proof and monument of the exercise of printing in that university several years before Caxton began to deal in it.

This book, which is in the public library at Cambridge, is a small volume of 41 leaves in 4to, with this title: Expositio Sancti Jeronimi in Symbolum Apostolorum ad Papam Laurentium: and at the end, Explicit expositio, &c. Impressa Oxonie, & finita Anno Domini M.CCCC.LXVIII. xvii die Decembris.

The appearance of this book has robbed Caxton of a glory that he had long possessed, of being the author of printing to this kingdom; and Oxford ever since carried the honour of the first press. The only difficulty was, to account for the silence of history in an event so memorable, and the want of any memorial in the university itself concerning the establishment of a new art amongst them of such use and benefit to learning. But this likewise has been cleared up, by the discovery of a record, which had lain obscure and unknown at Lambeth-house, in the Register of the See of Canterbury; and gives a narrative of the whole transaction, drawn up at the very time.

An account of this record was first published in a thin quarto volume, in English; with this title: "The Original and Growth of Printing, collected out of History and the Records of this Kingdom: wherein is also demonstrated, that Printing appertaineth to the Prerogative Royal, and is a Flower of the Crown of England. By Richard Atkyns, esq.—Whitehall, April the 25, 1664. By order and appointment of the right honourable Mr Secretary Morrice, let this be printed. Tho. Rycourt. London: Printed by John Streater, for the Author. 1664." 4to.

It sets forth in short, "That as soon as the art of printing made some noise in Europe, Thomas Bourchier, archbishop of Canterbury, moved the then king (Henry VI.) to use all possible means for procuring a printing-mold (for so it was there called) to be brought into this kingdom. The king (a good man, and much given to works of this nature) readily hearkened to the motion; and, taking private advice how to effect his design, concluded it could not be brought about without great secrecy, and a considerable sum of money given to such person or persons as would draw off some of the workmen of Harleim in Holland, where John Gutenberg had newly invented it, and was himself personally at work. It was resolved, that less than 1000 marks would not produce the desired effect; towards which sum the said archbishop presented the king 500 marks. The money being now prepared, the management of the design was committed to Mr Robert Turnour; who then was of the robes to the king, and a person most in favour with him of any of his condition. Mr Turnour took to his assistance Mr Caxton, a citizen of good abilities, who traded much into Hol-

land; which was a creditable pretence, as well for his going, as stay in the Low Countries. Mr Turnour was in disguise (his beard and hair shaven quite off); but Mr Caxton appeared known and public. They, having received the said sum of 1000 marks, went first to Amsterdam, then to Leyden, not daring to enter Harleim itself; for the town was very jealous, having imprisoned and apprehended divers persons who came from other parts for the same purpose. They staid till they had spent the whole thousand marks in gifts and expences: so as the king was fain to send 500 marks more. Mr Turnour having written to the king that he had almost done his work; a bargain (as he said) being struck betwixt him and two Hollanders, for bringing-off one of the under-workmen, whose name was Frederick Corsell (or rather Corsellis), who late one night stole from his fellows in disguise into a vessel prepared before for that purpose; and so, the wind favouring the design, brought him safe to London. It was not thought so prudent to set him on work at London: but, by the archbishop's means (who had been vice-chancellor and afterwards chancellor of the university of Oxon) Corsellis was carried with a guard to Oxon; which guard constantly watched, to prevent Corsellis from any possible escape, till he had made good his promise in teaching them how to print. So that at Oxford printing was first set up in England, which was before there was any printing-press or printer in France, Spain, Italy, or Germany (except the city of Mentz), which claims seniority, as to printing, even of Harleim itself, calling her city, Urbem Moguntianam artis typographice inventricem primam, though it is known to be otherwise; that city gaining the art by the brother of one of the workmen of Harleim, who had learnt it at home of his brother, and after set up for himself at Mentz. This press at Oxon was at least ten years before there was any printing in Europe, except at Harleim and Mentz, where it was but new-born. This press at Oxford was afterwards found inconvenient to be the sole printing-place of England; as being too far from London and the sea. Wherefore the king set up a press at St Alban's, and another in the city of Westminster, where they printed several books of divinity and physic: for the king (for reasons best known to himself and council) permitted then no law-books to be printed; nor did any printer exercise that art, but only such as were the king's sworn servants; the king himself having the price and enrolment for printing books.—By this means the art grew so famous, that anno primo Rich. III. c. 9. when an act of parliament was made for restraint of aliens for using any handicrafts here (except as servants to natives), a special proviso was inserted, that strangers might bring in printed or written books to sell at their pleasure, and exercise the art of printing here, notwithstanding that act: so that in that space of 40 or 50 years, by the indulgence of Edward IV. Edward V. Richard III. Henry VII. and Henry VIII. the English proved so good proficient in printing, and grew so numerous, as to furnish the kingdom with books; and so skilful, as to print them as well as any beyond the seas; as appears by the act 25 Hen. VIII. c. 15. which abrogates the said proviso for that reason. And as it was further enacted in the said statute, that if any person bought foreign books bound, he should pay 6s. 8d.

Printing. per book. And it was further provided and enacted, that in case the said printers or sellers of books were unreasonable in their prices, they should be moderated by the lord chancellor, lord treasurer, the two lords chief justices, or any two of them; who also had power to fine them 3s. 4d. for every book whose price should be enhanced.—But when they were by charter incorporated with bookbinders, bookfellers, and founders of letters, 3 & 4 Philip and Mary, and called The Company of Stationers—they kicked against the power that gave them life, &c.—Queen Elisabeth, the first year of her reign, grants by patent the privilege of sole printing all books that touch or concern the common laws of England, to Tottel a servant to her majesty, who kept it entire to his death; after him, to one Yeft Weirt, another servant to her majesty; after him, to Weight and Norton; and after them, king James grants the same privilege to More, one of the signet; which grant continues to this day, &c."

From the authority of this record, all our later writers declare Corfellis to be the first printer in England; Mr Anthony Wood, the learned Mr Maittaire, Palmer, and one John Bagford, an industrious man, who had published proposals for an History of Printing, (Phil. Trans. for April 1707). But Dr Middleton has called in question the authenticity of this account, and has urged several objections to it, with the view of supporting Caxton's title to the precedence with respect to the introduction of the art into this country; of which we shall quote one or two, with the answers that have been made to them.

Objection 1. "The silence of Caxton, concerning a fact in which he is said to be a principal actor, is a sufficient confutation of it: for it was a constant custom with him, in the prefaces or conclusions of his works, to give an historical account of all his labours and transactions, as far as they concerned the publishing and printing of books. And, what is still stronger, in the continuation of the Polychronicon, compiled by himself, and carried down to the end of Henry the sixth's reign, he makes no mention of the expedition in quest of a printer: which he could not have omitted, had it been true; whilst in the same book he takes notice of the invention and beginning of printing in the city of Mentz."

Answer. As Caxton makes no mention in his Polychronicon of his expedition in quest of a printer; so neither does he of his bringing the art into England, which it is as much a wonder he should omit as the other. And as to his saying that the invention of printing was at Mentz, he means, of printing on fusile separate types. In this he copies, as many others have, from the Fasciculus Temporum; a work written in 1470, by Wernerus Rolevinch de Lacer, a Carthusian monk, a MS. copy of which was in the library of Gerard Jo. Vossius (see lib. iii. de Histor. Latin. c. 6.); and afterwards continued to the year 1474, when it was first printed at Cologne typis Arnoldi ter Huernen. It was republished in 1481 by Heinrich Wircburg de Vach, a Cluniae monk, without mentioning the name either of the printer or of the place of publication. It is plain that Caxton had one at least, or more probably both, of these editions before him, when he wrote his continuation of Polychronicon, as he mentions this work in his preface, and adopts the

sentiments of its editor. (See MEERMAN, vol. ii. p. 37. Printing, and his Documenta, No VII. XXIV. and XXV.)

Obj. 2. "There is a farther circumstance in Caxton's history, that it seems inconsistent with the record; for we find him still beyond sea, about twelve years after the supposed transactions, "learning with great charge and trouble the art of printing" (Recule of the Histories of Troye, in the end of the 2d and 3d books); which he might have done with ease at home, if he had got Corfellis into his hands, as the record imports, so many years before: but he probably learnt it at Cologn, where he resided in 1471, (Recule, &c. ibid.), and whence books had been first printed with date, the year before."

Ans. Caxton tells us, in the preface to The History of Troye, that he began that translation March 1. 1468, at Bruges; that he proceeded on with it at Ghent; that he finished it at Cologn in 1471; and printed it, probably, in that city with its own types. He was 30 years abroad, chiefly in Holand; and lived in the court of Margaret duchess of Burgundy, sister of our Edward IV. It was therefore much easier to print his book at Cologn, than to cross the sea to learn the art at Oxford. But further, there was a special occasion for his printing it abroad. Corfellis had brought over so far the art of printing as he had learnt it at Harleim, which was the method of printing on wooden separate types, having the face of the letter cut upon them. But the art of casting metal types being divulged in 1462 by the workmen of Mentz, Caxton thought proper to learn that advantageous branch before he returned to England. This method of casting the types was such an improvement, that they looked on it as the original of printing; and Caxton, as most others do, ascribes that to Mentz.—Caxton was an assistant with Turner in getting off Corfellis; but it is nowhere supposed that he came with him into England. (See MEERMAN, vol. ii. p. 34. B.)

Obj. 3. "As the Lambeth record was never heard of before the publication of Atkins's book, so it has never since been seen or produced by any man; though the registers of Canterbury have on many occasions been diligently and particularly searched for it. They were examined, without doubt, very carefully by archbishop Parker, for the compiling his Antiquities of the British Church; where, in the life of Thomas Bourchier, though he congratulates that age on the noble and useful invention of printing, yet he is silent as to the introduction of it into England by the endeavours of that archbishop: nay, his giving the honour of the invention to Strasburg clearly shows that he knew nothing of the story of Corfellis conveyed from Harleim, and that the record was not in being in his time. Palmer himself owns, "That it is not to be found there now; for that the late earl of Pembroke assured him, that he had employed a person for some time to search for it, but in vain." (Hist. of Printing, p. 314.) On these grounds we may pronounce the record to be a forgery; though all the writers above-mentioned take pains to support its credit, and call it an authentic piece.

Atkins, who by his manner of writing seems to have been a bold and vain man, might possibly be the inventor: for he had an interest in imposing it upon the world, in order to confirm the argument of his book, that printing was of the prerogative royal; in opposition

Printing. opposition to the company of stationers, with whom he was engaged in an expensive suit of law, in defence of the king's patents, under which he claimed some exclusive powers of printing. For he tells us, p. 3. 'That, upon considering the thing, he could not but think that a public person, more eminent than a mercer, and a public purse, must needs be concerned in so public a good: and the more he considered, the more inquisitive he was to find out the truth. So that he had formed his hypothesis before he had found his record; which he published, he says, as a friend to truth; not to suffer one man to be entitled to the worthy achievements of another; and as a friend to himself, not to lose one of his best arguments of entitling the king to this art.' But, if Atkins was not himself the contriver, he was imposed upon at least by some more crafty; who imagined that his interest in the cause, and the warmth that he showed in prosecuting it, would induce him to swallow for genuine whatever was offered of the kind.'

Ans. On the other hand, is it likely that Mr Atkins would dare to forge a record, to be laid before the king and council, and which his adversaries, with whom he was at law, could disprove?—(2.) He says he received this history from a person of honour, who was some time keeper of the Lambeth Library. It was easy to have confuted this evidence, if it was false, when he published it, April 25. 1664.—(3.) John Bagford (who was born in England 1651, and might know Mr Atkins, who died in 1677), in his History of Printing at Oxford, blames those who doubted of the authenticity of the Lambeth MS.; and tells us that he knew Sir John Birkenhead had an authentic copy of it, when in 1665 [which Bagford by some mistake calls 1664, and is followed in it by Meerman] he was appointed by the house of commons to draw up a bill relating to the exercise of that art. This is confirmed by the Journals of that house, Friday Oct. 27, 1665, Vol. VIII. p. 622. where it is ordered that this Sir John Birkenhead should carry the bill on that head to the house of lords, for their consent.—The act was agreed to in the upper house on Tuesday Oct. 31. and received the royal assent on the same day; immediately after which, the parliament was prorogued. See Journals of the House of Lords, Vol. XI. p. 700.—It is probable then, that, after Mr Atkins had published his book in April 1664, the parliament thought proper, the next year, to inquire into the right of the king's prerogative; and that Sir John Birkenhead took care to inspect the original, then in the custody of archbishop Sheldon: and, finding it not sufficient to prove what Mr Atkins had cited it for, made no report of the MS. to the house; but only moved, that the former law should be renewed. The MS. was probably never returned to the proper keeper of it; but was afterwards burnt in the fire of London, Sept. 13, 1666.—(4.) That Printing was practised at Oxford, was a prevailing opinion long before Atkins. Bryan Twyne, in his Apologia pro Antiquitate Academiae Oxoniensis, published 1608, tells us, it is so delivered down in ancient writings; having heard, probably, of this Lambeth MS. And king Charles I. in his letters-patent to the University of Oxford, March 5, in the eleventh of his reign, 1635, mentions Printing as brought to Oxford from abroad. As to what is objected, 'that it is not

likely that the press should undergo a ten or eleven years sleep, viz. from 1468 to 1479,' it is probably urged without foundation. Corfellis might print several books without date or name of the place, as Ulric Zell did at Cologne, from 1467 to 1473, and from that time to 1494. Corfellis's name, it may be said, appears not in any of his publications; but neither does that of Joannes Peterhemius. [See MEERMAN, Vol. I. p. 34; Vol. II. p. 21—27, &c.]

Further, the famous Shakespeare, who was born in 1564, and died 1616, in the Second Part of Henry VI. act. iv. sc. 7. introduces the rebel John Cade, thus upbraiding Lord Treasurer Say: "Thou hast most traitorously corrupted the youth of the realm, in creating a grammar-school: and whereas, before, our forefathers had no other book but the score and the tally, thou hast caused Printing to be used; and, contrary to the king, his crown, and dignity, thou hast built a paper-mill."—Whence now had Shakespeare this accusation against lord Say? We are told in the Poetical Register, vol. ii. p. 231. ed. Lond. 1724, that it was from Fabian, Pol. Vergel, Hall, Hollingshed, Grafton, Stow, Speed, &c. But not one of these ascribes printing to the reign of Henry VI. On the contrary, Stow, in his Annals, printed at London 1560, p. 686, gives it expressly to William Caxton, 1471. "The noble science of Printing was about this time found in Germany at Magunce, by one John Guthumburgus a knight. One Conradus an Almaine brought it into Rome: William Caxton of London mercer, brought it into England about the yeare 1471, and first practised the same in the Abbie of St Peter at Westminster; after which time it was likewise practised in the Abbies of St Augustine at Canterbury, Saint Albons, and other monasteries of England." What then shall we say, that the above is an anachronism arbitrarily put into the mouth of an ignorant fellow out of Shakespeare's head? We might believe so, but that we have the record of Mr Atkins confirming the same in king Char. II.'s time. Shall we say, that Mr Atkins borrowed the story from Shakespeare, and published it with some improvements of money laid out by Henry VI. from whence it might be received by Charles II. as a prerogative of the crown? But this is improbable, since Shakespeare makes Lord Treasurer Say the instrument of importing it, of whom Mr Atkins mentions not a word. Another difference there will still be between Shakespeare and the Lambeth MS; the poet placing it before 1449, in which year Lord Say was beheaded; the MS. between 1454 and 1459, when Burchier was archbishop. We must say then, that lord Say first laid the scheme, and sent some one to Harleim, tho' without success; but after some years it was attempted happily by Burchier. And we must conclude, that as the generality of writers have overlooked the invention of printing at Harleim with wooden types, and have ascribed it to Mentz where metal types were first made use of; so in England they have passed by Corfellis, (or the first Oxford Printer, whoever he was, who printed with wooden types at Oxford, and only mentioned Caxton as the original artist who printed with metal types at Westminster. [See MEERMAN, vol. ii. 7, 8.] It is strange, that the learned commentators on our great dramatic poet, who are so minutely

Printing. nutely particular upon less important occasions, should every one of them, Dr Johnson excepted, pass by this curious passage, leaving it entirely unnoticed. And how has Dr Johnson trifled, by slightly remarking, "that Shakespeare is a little too early with this accusation!"—The great critic had undertaken to decipher obsolete words, and investigate unintelligible phrases; but never, perhaps, bestowed a thought on Caxton or Corfellis, on Mr Atkins or the authenticity of the Lambeth Record.

But, independent of the record altogether, the book stands firm as a monument of the exercise of printing in Oxford six years older than any book of Caxton's with a date. In order to get clear of this strong fact, Dr Middleton,

1. Supposes the date in question to have been falsified originally by the printer either by design or mistake; and an X to have been dropped or omitted in the age of its impression. Examples of this kind, he says, are common in the history of printing. And, "whilst I am now writing, an unexpected instance is fallen into my hands, to the support of my opinion; an Inauguration Speech of the Woodwardian Professor, Mr Mason, just fresh from the press, with its date given 10 years earlier than it should have been, by the omission of an x, viz. mcccxxiv; and the very blunder exemplified in the last piece printed at Cambridge, which I suppose to have happened in the first from Oxford."—To this it has been very properly answered, That we should not pretend to set aside the authority of a plain date, without very strong and cogent reasons; and what the Doctor has in this case advanced will not appear, on examination, to carry that weight with it that he seems to imagine. There may be, and have been, mistakes and forgeries in the date both of books and of records too; but this is never allowed as a reason for suspecting such as bear no mark of either. We cannot, from a blunder in the last book printed at Cambridge, infer a like blunder in the first book printed at Oxford. Besides, the type used in this our Oxford edition seems to be no small proof of its antiquity. It is the German letter, and very nearly the same with that used by Fust [who has been supposed to be] the first printer; whereas Caxton and Rood use a quite different letter, something between this German and our old English letter, which was soon after introduced by De Worde and Bynson.

2. "For the probability of his opinion, (he says) the book itself affords sufficient proof: for, not to insist on what is less material, the neatness of the letter, and regularity of the page, &c. above those of Caxton, it has one mark, that seems to have carried the matter beyond probable, and to make it even certain, viz. the use of signatures, or letters of the alphabet placed at the bottom of the page to shew the sequel of the pages and leaves of each book; an improvement contrived for the direction of the bookbinders; VOL. IX.

which yet was not practised or invented at the time when this book is supposed to be printed; for we find no signatures in the books of Fust or Schoeffer at Mentz, nor in the improved or beautiful impressions of John de Spira and Jenson at Venice, till several years later. We have a book in our library, that seems to fix the very time of their invention, at least in Venice; the place where the art itself received the greatest improvements: Baldi lectura super Codic. &c. printed by John de Colonia and Jo. Manthem de Gherretzem, anno mcccclxxiiii. It is a large and fair volume in folio, without signatures, till about the middle of the book, in which they are first introduced, and so continued forward: which makes it probable, that the first thought of them was suggested during the impression; for we have likewise Lectura Bartholi super Codic. &c. in two noble and beautiful volumes in folio, printed the year before at the same place, by Vindelina de Spira, without them: yet from this time forward they are generally found in all the works of the Venetian printers, and from them propagated to the other printers of Europe. They were used at (L) Cologne, in 1475; at Paris, 1476; by Caxton, not before 1480: but if the discovery had been brought into England, and practised at Oxford 12 before, it is not probable that he would have printed so long at Westminster without them. Mr Palmer indeed tells us, p. 54, 180, that Anthony Zarot was esteemed the inventor of signatures; and that they are found in a Terence printed by him at Milan in the year 1470, in which he first printed. I have not seen that Terence; and can only say, that I have observed the want of them in some later works of this, as well as of other excellent printers of the same place. But, allowing them to be in the Terence, and Zarot the inventor, it confutes the date of our Oxford book as effectually as if they were of later origin at Venice; as I had reason to imagine, from the testimony of all the books that I have hitherto met with."—As to these proofs, first, the neatness of the letter, and the regularity of the page, prove, if any thing, the very reverse of what the Doctor asserts. The art of printing was almost in its infancy brought to perfection; but afterwards debased by later printers, who consulted rather the cheapness than the neatness of their work. Our learned dissertator cannot be unacquainted with the labours of Fust and Jenson. He must know, that though other printers may have printed more correctly, yet scarce any excel them, either in the neatness of the letter, or the regularity of the page. The same may be observed in our English printers. Caxton and Rood were indifferently good printers: De Worde and Bynson were worse; and those that follow them most abominable. This our anonymous Oxford printer excels them all; and for this very reason we should judge him to be the most ancient of all. Our dissertator lays great

(L) Dr Middleton is mistaken in the time and place of the invention of signatures. They are to be found even in very ancient MSS. which the earliest printers very studiously imitated; and they were even used in some editions from the office of Laurence Coster (whence Corfellis came), which consisted of wooden cuts, as in Figure typica et anti-typica Novi Testamenti; and in some editions with metal types, as in Gasp. Pergamenensis epistola, published at Paris, without a date, but printed A. D. 1470, (Maittaire, Annal. vol. i. p. 25.); and in Mammetretius, printed by Helias de Llouffen, at Born in Switzerland, 1470; and in De Tondeli visione, at Antwerp, 1472. Venice, therefore, was not the place where they were first introduced.—They began to be used in Baldus, it seems, when the book was half finished. The printer of that book might not know, or did not think, of the use of them before. See Meerman, vol. ii. p. 18; and Phil. Trans. vol. xxiii. n^o 208. p. 1509.

Printing. great stress on the use of signatures. But no certain conclusion can be drawn either from the use or non-use of these lesser improvements of printing. They have in different places come in use at different times, and have not been continued regularly even at the same places. If Anthony Zarot used them at Milan in 1470, it is certain later printers there did not follow his example; and the like might happen also in England. But, what is more full to our purpose, we have in the Bodleian library an Æsop's Fables printed by Caxton. This is, it is believed, the first book which has the leaves numbered. But yet this improvement, though more useful than that of the signatures, was disused both by Caxton himself and other later printers in England. It is therefore not at all surprising (if true) that the signatures, though invented by our Oxford printer, might not immediately come into general use. And consequently, this particular carries with it no such certain or effectual confutation as our dissertator boasts of.

3. What the doctor thinks farther confirms his opinion is, "That, from the time of the pretended date of this book, anno 1468, we have no other fruit or production from the press at Oxford for 11 years next following; and it cannot be imagined that a press, established with so much pains and expence, could be suffered to be so long idle and useless."—To this it may be answered, in the words of Oxonides, 1st, That his books may have been lost. Our first printers, in those days of ignorance, met with but small encouragement; they printed but few books, and but few copies of those books. In after-times, when the same books were re-printed more correctly, those first editions, which were not as yet become curiosities, were put to common uses. This is the reason that we have so few remains of our first printers. We have only four books of Theodoric Rood, who seems by his own verses to have been a very celebrated printer. Of John Lettou-William de Macblinis, and the schoolmaster of St Alban's, we have scarce any remains. If this be considered, it will not appear impossible that our printer should have followed his business from 1468 to 1479, and yet Time have destroyed his intermediate works. But, 2dly, We may account still another way for this distance of time, without altering the date. The Civil Wars broke out in 1469: this might probably oblige our Oxford printer to shut up his press; and both himself and his readers be otherwise engaged. If this were the case, he might not return to his work again till 1479; and the next year, not meeting with that encouragement he deserved, he might remove to some other country with his types.

Dr Middleton concludes with apologising for his "spending so much pains on an argument so inconsequential, to which he was led by his zeal to do a piece of justice to the memory of our worthy countryman William Caxton; nor suffer him to be robbed of the glory, so clearly due to him, of having first imported into this kingdom an art of great use and benefit to mankind: a kind of merit, that, in the sense of all nations, gives the best title to true praise, and the best claim to be commemorated with honour to posterity."

The fact, however, against which he contends, but which it seems impossible to overturn, does by no means derogate from the honour of Caxton, who, as

has been shown, was the first person in England that practised the art of printing fusile types, and consequently the first who brought it to perfection; whereas Corfellis printed with separate cut types in wood, being the only method which he had learned at Harlem. Into this detail, therefore, we have been led, not so much by the importance of the question, as on account of several anecdotes connected with it, which seemed equally calculated to satisfy curiosity and afford entertainment.

Caxton had been bred very reputably in the way of trade, and served an apprenticeship to one Robert Large, a mercer; who, after having been sheriff and lord mayor of London, died in the year 1441, and left by will, as may be seen in the prerogative-office, xxxiiii marks to his apprentice William Caxton: a considerable legacy in those days, and an early testimonial of his good character and integrity.

From the time of his master's death, he spent the following thirty years beyond sea, in the business of merchandise: where, in the year 1464, we find him employed by Edward IV. in a public and honourable negotiation, jointly with one Richard Whitehill, esq; to transact and conclude a treaty of commerce between the king and his brother-in-law the duke of Burgundy, to whom Flanders belonged. The commission styles them, ambassatores, procuratores, nuncios, & deputatos speciales; and gives to both or either of them full powers to treat, &c.

Whoever turns over his printed works, must contrast a respect for him, and be convinced that he preserved the same character through life, of an honest, modest, man; greatly industrious to do good to his country, to the best of his abilities, by spreading among the people such books as he thought useful to religion and good manners, which were chiefly translated from the French. The novelty and usefulness of his art recommended him to the special notice and favour of the great; under whose protection, and at whose expence, the greatest part of his works were published. Some of them are addressed to king Edward IV. his brother the duke of Clarence, and their sister the duchess of Burgundy; in whose service and pay he lived many years before he began to print, as he often acknowledges with great gratitude. He printed likewise for the use, and by the express order, of Henry VII. his son prince Arthur, and many of the principal nobility and gentry of that age.

It has been generally asserted and believed, that all his books were printed in the abbey of Westminster; yet we have no assurance of it from himself, nor any mention of the place before the year 1477: so that he had been printing several years, without telling us where.

There is no clear account left of Caxton's age: but he was certainly very old, and probably above fourscore, at the time of his death. In the year 1471 he complained of the infirmities of age creeping upon him, and feebling his body: yet he lived 23 years after, and pursued his business, with extraordinary diligence, in the abbey of Westminster, till the year 1494, in which he died; not in the year following, as all who write of him affirm. This appears from some verses at the end of a book, called, "Hilton's Scale of Perfection," printed in the same

“ Infynite laud with thankynges many folde
I yield to God me socouryng with his grace
This boke to finyshe which that ye beholde
Scale of Perfection calde in every place
Whereof th'author Walter Hilton was
And Wynkyn de Worde this hath sett in print
In William Caxtons hows so fyll the case,
God rest his soule. In joy ther mot it flynt.

Impressus anno salutis MCCCCLXXXIII.

Though he had printed for the use of Edward IV. and Henry VII. yet there appears no ground for the notion which Palmer takes up, that the first printers, and particularly Caxton, were sworn servants and printers to the crown; for Caxton, as far as can be observed, gives not the least hint of any such character or title: though it seems to have been instituted not long after his death: for of his two principal workmen, Richard Pynson and Wynkin de Worde, the one was made printer to the king, the other to the king's mother the Lady Margaret. Pynson gives himself the first title, in The imitation of the Life of Christ; printed by him at the commandment of the Lady Margaret, who had translated the fourth book of it from the French, in the year 1504: and Wynkin de Worde assumes the second, in The seven Penitential Psalms, expounded by bishop Fisher, and printed in the year 1509. But there is the title of a book given by Palmer, that seems to contradict what is here said of Pynson: viz. Psalterium ex mandato vitoriosissimi Anglie Regis Henrici Septimi, per Gulielmum Fanque, impressorem regium, anno MDIII; which, being the only work that has ever been found of this printer, makes it probable that he died in the very year of its impression, and was succeeded immediately by Richard Pynson.