148
HISTORY OF PRINTING.
broke out in 1469; this might probably oblige our Oxford printer to shut up nis press ; and both himself and his readers be otherwise en- gaged. If this were the case, he might not return to his work again till 1479; and the next
J ear, no^ meeting with that encouragement he eserved, he might remove to some other coun- try with his types.
Dr. Middleton concludes with apologising for his " spending so much pains on an argument so inconsiderable, 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 man- Idnd : 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 by 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 with &ile types; and conse- ' quently the first who brought it to perfection ; whereas Corsellis printed with separate cut types in wood, being the only method which he had learned at Haerlem.
It has been asserted, that it is of little conse- quence whether the record ever existed or not : the book stands firm as a monument, that print- ing was exercised at Oxford six years earlier than any of Caxton's works with cuites. The case certainly appears strong ; and would naturally induce many, at first sight, to give full credit to it. Dates, we know, though generally considered as a just criterion of the age of books, is not always to be depended upon ; and we perfectly agree with Dr. Middleton, that the date in ques- tion appears to have been falsified by the printer, either by design or mistake, and an x to have j)een dropped or omitted in the age of its im- pression. Examples of this kind are not unfre- quent in the early stages of the art ; Dr. Middle - ton observes, that he has seen several dates altered very artfully alter publication, to give them the credit of greater antiquity. They have at Haer- lem, in large quarto, a Dutch translation of Bartholonueui de proprietatibus rerum, printed by Jacob Bellart, anon mccccxxxv : Uiis work is exhibited as a proof of their claim to the earliest printing. But Mr. Bagford, who had seen a copy of it with the genuine date, ex- posed the cheat : an l had been erased so cun- ningly, that it was not easy to perceive it. Besides the frauds of an after-contrivance, many false dates have originally been given by the printers ; partly by design to enhance their value, but chiefly through negligence and blunder. — There is said to be a bible at Augsburg, of the year 1449, the two last figures being transposed, It should stand thus, 1494. Three other bibles are noticed by Chevlllier, one at Paris, 1443 ; a second at Lyons, 1446 ; a third at Basil, 1450 ; though it is well known that the art was not
practised at any of these places till several yetn after. Orlandi describes three books from Ha Mentz press with similar mistakes : John Koel- hoff, who first printed at Cologne, about 1470, has dated one of his books anno mcccc. with at omitted ; and another 1458, which Palmer attii- butes to design, rather than mistake. Butwhxt is most to our point, is a work of Nicholas Jensos, intitled Decor Puellanan, anno mcccclxi : now all Jenson's other productions are dated fiom Venice between mcccclxx and mcccclxu; this justly raised a suspicion that an x had lieeii omitted in the date, which ought to be advanced ten years forward. In confirmation of the abore opinion, there is an edition of Tvlly't Epiitla at Venice, anno mcccclxix, by the noted John de Spira ; who has inserted the following linesatlke end, in which he claims the honour of beisg the first who printed in that city:
Primiu In AdrUca formia Impmsit aenis Urbe Ubros Spin g:eiiitua de stirpe Johannes. In reliquis ait quanta, videa, spea. Lector, habenda, Qoam labor hlc primiu caliml supeiaveiit Arlcm.
The current opinion that Jenson was the first printer at Venicf , although supported by coteni- porary authority, must give place to this assertion of John de Spira ; which being published in the very teeth of his rival Jenson, without any con- traaictiun from him, carries with it sumciest weight te counterbalance whatever might be ad- vanced in support of the claims of the former. Upon this subject Dr. Middleton observes— " But whilst I am now writing, an unexpected instance is fallen into my han(U, te the support of my opinion ; an Inauffuration Speech ojtht Woodwardian Profestor, Mr. Mason, just fiesh from the press, with its date given ten years earlier than it should have been, by the omission of an X, viz. mdccxxiv ; and the very blunder exemplified in the last piece printed at Can- bridge, which I suppose to have happened in the first from Oxford."*
- The following cnrions lemarks, on thia paaaage <t Dr.
Middleton, appeared in The Week^ Macellmf, Satnnlar, April as, 173S, in a letter, algned 'Oxonidea :'—
" I thtnlc the learned antlior baa sulBciently expoaed tlic idle story of Frederick Cortellit, and entiielr concni vUk him in rejecting It. But when he compUmenta Cai(m with the name of our First Printer, notwithitandlag the aothorltT of a book printed at Oxford, and dated la the year UOS, I cannot p> bo far with him. We shouM not pretend to set aside the antborlty of a plain date, withoot very strong and cogent reasons; and I am afMdwhat the Doctor bas in this case advanced will not iqjpear, on exa- mlnatloD, to carry that weight with it that he seems to Imagine. There may be, and have been, mistakes and forgeries in the date t)otb of books and of records too; but this is never allowed as a reason for suspecting audi as bear no mark of either. We cannot, from a blander ia the last book printed at Cambridge, infer the like blander in the first book printed at Oxford. Besides, the t^ie oied in thia our Oxford edition seems to be no small proof of ita antiquity. It is the airman letter, and very nearljr the same with that used by FvMt [who baa been soppoeed to be] the First Printer ; whereas Caxton and Road use a quite difTerent letter, something between this Oerman and our old Engliik letter, which was soon after intnxloced by De Worde and Pynton. LasUy, the supposed year of this edition is much about the time that the piiotets at Mentz dispersed, and carried the ait of Printing with tbern to most parta of Europe. Thia circumatance, Jauied to that of the letter, inclines me to think that one q/' tkeie printers might then come over to England, andfoUow ht pro/eaion at Oxford. These, I must own, are only coo-
VjOOQ IC
