4s CATALOGUE OF A LOAN COLLECTION OF BOOKS.

to liiui ; but I agree Avitli !Mr. llcssels that tlicy may with equal probahihty be assigned to Nichohis Bechtcrniiintze, who is known to have printed at Eltvill, near ^lentz, at least as eai'ly as 14G7, in Avliich year one of liis books is dated. The type is general!}' described as that of the Catholicon of ]4G0, a book nsualiy assumed to be Gutenberg's; but here again the evidence is too vague to amount to proof. The introduction of printing into England is, next after its invention in Gei-nianv, the most interesting event to us. Here again, however, difliculties beset us at every step. Wiicre and from whom did Caxton learn his art'? Wiiat was the fii'st book he printed? What was tlie first book printed in England ? Strange to say, all these questions have had varving answers assigned to them. I cannot attempt here to discuss any one of them. T>ut for the information of the readers of tliis catalogue, I will endeavour to state as brief!}' as possible the answers which seem justified by the most recent investigations, merely pre- mising that 1 derive most, if not all, my information on the subject from Mr. Blades's ^ exhaustive treatise. Caxton learnt his art fi'om Colard ^^ansion, one of whose 1 looks, the " Somme Kurale," was in the Loan Collection. He printed at Bruges, under the patronage of the Duchess of iMugimdy, the sister of our Iving Edward IV. The first book Caxton printed was probably the " Rccuycll of the Histories of Troyc," 1474. The first book he printed in J']n'j,land was probably the " Dictes and Sayings of the Fhilo- .sopher.s," 1477, althougli the honour is often given to the "Game and Play of tlie Cliesse, moilised," 1474 5. A copy of the former book, but of a later (-(Htion, was in the Lo.fn Collection, as well as a coj)y of the Chess-book. The wiiole (piestion as to the fnst book printed in I^'ingl.ind was much complicated by tlie discover}' two centin"ies ago of a ijook printe<l at Oxford, with the (late 14 (IS ; it is (>ntitled, " Sancti Jeronomi in Synib(»lo," but ilic date is certainly a iniipi-int for 1 1 78. Caxton himself was guilty of a similar ei ror in his edition of Gowei-'s " (/Oid'essio Amantis," a copy of wliich is in the Lambeih Lilnai-y, an<l thicc copies, two of them iinjierfeet and wanting the jiagr in wliieli tin; misprint

• Tlio l.ifo nn<l Typogrnpliy of Williikin in Ih.'il of it»« tiatiHl.ilioti, nml tluit it was

Cnx'on, 2 voIn., 1HIi3. 1 mIioiiIiI iii><iition )r»tiihy not priiitud buforo I ^. tliAt the r|at<j mutignod to tho ChoM bcxjjc