Sept. 7. 1850.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



233 



of the two, he says (Dictionnaire Historique, Paris, 

 1759, torn. i. par. ii. p. 87.) : — 



"Anglicus (Micliel), natif de Beaumont dans le 

 Hainaut, qui vivoit dans le XVI. siecle, ^toit poete et 

 professeur en droit. Nous avons divers ouvrages de sa 

 fa^on, des eglogues, un traite de mutiitione slur/iurum, 

 SiC. (Valer. Andreas, Bibl. Btlp.) Quelques auteurs 

 I'ont confondu avec Michel Blaumpain. (VoyezBlaum- 

 pain.)" 



Of the earlier Anglicus, Moreri says (ubi sup., 

 torn. ii. par. i. p. 506.) : — 



"Blaumpain (Michel) surnomme Magister, Anglois 

 de nation, et Pve'te, qui vivoit vers I'an 1250. II est 

 nonim^ par quelques-un Micliel Anglicus. Mais il y a 

 plus d'apparence que e'etoient deux auteurs differens ; 

 dont I'un composa une histoire de Normandie, et un 

 traite centre Henri d'Avranches ; et I'antre laissa quel- 

 ques pieces de potisies ;. — ■ Eel garum, libri iv., ad Epis- 

 copum Parisiensem ; Eclogirum, libri ii., ad Ludo- 

 vicum Villerium, De mutatione studiorum, Elogia 

 deprecatoria, &c. Baptiste IMaiituan parle de Michel 

 Anglicus, qui etoit de Beaumont dans I'Hainault. 

 ( I'lts-us, De Script. Angl., p. S2L'. ; Valerius Andreas in 

 Bibl., p. 670.)" 



Perhaps some of your readers may have access 

 to a copy of the Paris impression of Michael An- 

 glicus, mentioned by Andreas, Svveertius, and Ileud- 

 reich. J. B. will not need to be reminded of 

 these words of Innocent HI., in his first serni. de 

 consecr. Pont. I\Iax., iu which he claimed, as St. 

 Peter's successor, to be 



" Inter Deum et hominem medius constitutus; citra 

 Deum, sed ultra hominem; minor Deo, sed major 

 homine: qui de omnibus judicar, et a nemine judi- 

 catur.'' — Innoceniii tertii Op., ed. Colon. 1575, tom. i., 

 p. 189. 



Did the claim originate with Pope Innocent ? 



J. Sansom. 



CAXTON S PRINTlNG-OrFICE. 



I must protest against the manner in which 

 Arun (Vol. ii., p. 187.) has proceeded with the 

 discussion on Caxton's printing at Westminster. 

 Tiiough writing anonymously himself, he has not 

 hesitated to cliai-ge me by name with a desire to 

 ini|)each the accuracy of Mr. C. Knight's fJfe of 

 Caxton, of which, and of other works of the same 

 series, he then Vfjlunteers as the champion, as if 

 tiicy, or any oncof them, were tlie object of a general 

 attack. This is esjiecially unfair, as I made the 

 slightest possible allusion to Mr. Knight's work, 

 and may confess I have as yet seen no more of 

 it than tlie passage quoted by Arun himself. 

 Any sucii admixture of personal im])utations is 

 decidedly to be deprecated, as being likely to mi- 

 litate against (he sober invcHligation of truth 

 which has hitherto characleri.sed the pages of 

 " Notes and Qoeeiks." Abun also chooses to say 



that the only question which is material, is, Who 

 was Caxtf)n's patron? i.e. who was the Abbot of 

 AVestminster at the time, — who may not, after all, 

 have actively interfered in the matter. This 

 question remains in some doubt ; but it was not 

 the question with which Dr. Rimbault commenced 

 the discussion. The object of that gentleman's 

 inquiry (Vol. ii., p. 99.) was, the particular spot 

 where Caxton's press was fixed. From a misap- 

 prehension of the passage in Stow, a current 

 opinion has obtained that the first English press 

 was erected within the abbey-church, and in the 

 chapel of St. Anne; and Dr. Dibdin conjectured 

 that the chapel of St. Anne stood on the site of 

 Henry VII.'s chapel. The correction of this vulgar 

 error is, I submit, by no means immaterial ; espe- 

 cially at a time when a great eifort is made to 

 propagate it l)y the publication of a print, repre- 

 senting " William Caxton examining the first proof 

 sheet from his printing-press in Westminster 

 Abbey;" the engraving of which is to be "of the 

 size of the favourite print of Bolton Abbey:" 

 where the draftsman has deliberately represented 

 tlie printers at work within the consecrated walls 

 of the church itself! When a less careless reader 

 than Dr. Dibdin consults the passage of Stow, he 

 finds that the chapel of St. Anne stood in the op- 

 posite direction from the church to the site of Henry 

 VII.'s chapel, i. e. within the court of the Almonry; 

 and that Caxton's press was also set up in the Ai- 

 monrv, though not (so far as appears, or is probable) 

 within that chapel. The second question is, W hen 

 did Caxton first set up his press in this place ? 

 And the third, the answer to which depends on 

 tlie preceding, is, Who was the abbot who gave 

 him admission ? Now it is true, as Arun remarks, 

 that the introduction of Abbot Islip's name is 

 traced up to Stow in the year 1603 : and, as Mr. 

 Knight has observed, "the careful historian of 

 London here committed one error," because John 

 Islip did not become Abbot of AVestminster until 

 1500. The entire passage of Stow has been quoted 

 by Dr. Himbault in " Notes and Queries," 

 Vol. ii., p. 99.; it states that in the Almonry — 



" Islip, abbot of Westminster, erected the first press 

 of book-printing that ever was in England, about the 

 year 1471." 



Now, it appears that various authors of repute, 

 who have given the jioint their consideration, as 

 the editor of Dugdale's Monu.'iticon (Sir Henry 

 Ellis), and Mr. Cunningham in his Handbook., 

 affirm that it is John Esteney who became abbot 

 in 1474 or 1475, and not Thomas Milling, who was 

 abbot in 1471, whose name should be substituted 

 for that of Islip. In that case, Stowe committed 

 two errors instead of one; he was wrong in his 

 date as well as iiis name. It is to this point that 

 I directed my remarks, which are printed in Vol. ii., 

 p. 142. We have hitherto no evidence that Caxton 



