THE CAXTON COFFER.
An opinion prevails that biographers who lived nearest the times of the individuals whom they commemorate are most entitled to belief, as having at command the best sources of information. To this rule, however, there are numerous exceptions; for time, which casts some facts into oblivion, also produces fresh materials for historians and biographers.
It is certainly advisable to consult the earliest memoir of an individual in whose fate we take an interest, and even each successive memoir, in order that we may trace the more important historical particulars, and such critical opinions as seem to require discussion, to their true source. The result of some comparisons of this description, on former occasions, has almost led me to consider biographers as mere copyists—or, at the best, artists in patch-work. I shall now compare, on one point, the earlier biographers of Caxton:—
"Gvilhelmus Caxton, Anglus—habitavit interim in Flandria 30 annis cum domina Margareta Burgundiæ ducissa regis Edwardi sorore."—Joannes BALE, 1559.
"Gvilhelmvs Caxtonus, natione Anglus. Vir pius, doctus, etc. In Flandria quidem triginta annis vixit cum Margareta Burgundiæ duce, regis Edwardi quarti sorore."—Joannes PITSEUS, 1619.
"William Caxton, born in that town [sc. Caxton!]. He had most of his education beyond the seas, living 30 years in the court of Margaret dutchesse of Burgundy, sister to king Edward the Fourth, whence I conclude him an Anti-Lancastrian in his affection."—Thomas FULLER, 1662.
"William Caxton—was a menial servant, for thirty years together, to Margaret dutchess of Burgundy, sister to our king Edward IV., in Flanders."—William NICOLSON, 1714.
"Gulielmus Caxton natus in sylvestri regione Cantiae; in Flandria, Brabantia, Hollandia, Zelandia xxx annis cum domina Margareta, Burgundiae ducissa, regis Edwardi IV. sorore vixit."—Thomas TANNERUS, 1748.
Now, according to Fabian, Stow, and others, Margaret of York was married to Charles duke of Burgundy in 1468; and if Caxton did not return to England about the year 1471, as Stow asserts, he was certainly established at Westminster in 1477. The thirty years of the learned writers must therefore be reduced to less than ten years!
The discrepancy between these writers, on another important point, is not less remarkable than their agreement in error, as above-described. Pits says Caxton flourished in 1483; Fuller, that he died in 1486; and Tanner, that he flourished about 1483, and died in 1491. Shakspere died in 1616: in what year did he flourish?
BOLTON CORNEY.