been found among the lately discovered Le Clerc MSS.; and it is not unlikely that the same MSS. might contain letters of the third earl, the author of the Characteristics, who was a friend and correspondent of Le Clerc.
CAXTON'S PRINTING-OFFICE
The particular spot where Caxton exercised his business, or the place where his press was fixed, cannot now, perhaps, be exactly ascertained. Dr. Dibdin, after a careful examination of existing testimonies, thinks it most probable that he erected his press in one of the chapels attached to the aisles of Westminster Abbey; and as no remains of this interesting place can now be discovered, there is a strong presumption that it was pulled down in making alterations for the building of Henry VII.'s splendid chapel.
It has been frequently asserted that all Caxton's books were printed in a part of Westminster Abbey; this must be mere conjecture, because we find no statement of it from himself: he first mentions the place of his printing in 1477, so that he must have printed some time without informing us where.
With all possible respect for the opinions of Dr. Dibdin, and the numerous writers on our early typography, I have very considerable doubts as to whether Caxton really printed within the walls of the Abbey at all. I am aware that he himself says, in some of his colophons, "Emprinted in th' Abbey of Westmynstre," but query whether the precincts of the Abbey are not intended? Stow, in his Annals (edit 1560, p. 686.), says,—"William Caxton of London, mercer, brought it (printing) into England about the year 1471, and first practised the same in the Abbie of St. Peter at Westminster;" but in his Survey of London, 1603 (edit. Thoms, p. 176.), the same writer gives us a more full and particular account; it is as follows:—
"Near unto this house [i.e. Henry VII.'s alms-house], westward, was an old chapel of St. Anne; over against the which, the Lady Margaret, mother to King Henry VII., erected an alms-house for poor women, which is now turned into lodgings for the singing men of the college. The place wherein this chapel and alms-house standeth was called the Elemosinary, or almonry, now corruptly the ambry, for that the alms of the Abbey were there distributed to the poor; and therein Islip, abbot of Westminster, erected the first press of book-printing that ever was in England, about the year of Christ 1471. William Caxton, citizen of London, mercer, brought it into England, and was the first that practised it in the said abbey; after which time the like was practised in the abbeys of St. Augustine at Canterbury, St. Albans, and other monasteries."
Again, in the curious hand-bill preserved in the Bodleian Library, it will be remembered that Caxton invites his customers to "come to Westmonester into the Almonestrye," where they may purchase his books "good chepe."
From these extracts it is pretty clear that Caxton's printing-office was in the Almonry, which was within the precincts of the Abbey, and not in the Abbey itself. The "old chapel of St. Anne" was doubtless the place where the first printing-office was erected in England. Abbot Milling (not Islip, as stated by Stow) was the generous friend and patron of Caxton and the art of printing; and it was by permission of this learned monk that our printer was allowed the use of the building in question.
The old chapel of St. Anne stood in the New-way, near the back of the workhouse, at the bottom of the almonry leading to what is now called Stratton Ground. It was pulled down, I believe, about the middle of the seventeenth century. The new chapel of St. Anne, erected in 1631, near the site of the old one, was destroyed about fifty years since.
Mr. Cunningham, in his Handbook for London (vol. i. p. 17.), says,—
"The first printing-press ever seen in England was set up in this almonry under the patronage of Esteney, Abbot of Westminster, by William Caxton, citizen and mercer (d. 1483)."
Esteney succeeded Milling in the Abbacy of Westminster, but the latter did not die before 1492. On p. 520. of his second volume, Mr. Cunninghan gives the date of Caxton's death correctly, i.e. 1491.
SANATORY LAWS IN OTHER DAYS
In that curious medley commonly designated, after Hearne, Arnold's Chronicle, and which was probably first printed in 1502 or 1503, we find the following passages. I make "notes" of them, from their peculiar interest at the moment when sanatory bills, having the same objects, are occupying the public attention so strongly; especially in respect to the Smithfield Nuisance and the Clergy Discipline bill.
1. In a paper entitled "The articles dishired bi y'e comonse of the cety of London, for reformacyo of thingis to the same, of the Mayer, Aldirmen, and Comon Counsell, to be enacted," we have the following:—
"Also that in anoyding the corupte savours and lothsom innoyaunc (caused by slaughter of best) w'tin the cyte, wherby moche people is corupte and infecte, it may plese my Lord Mayr, Aldirmen, and Comen Counsaile, to put in execucion a certaine acte of parlement, by whiche it is ordeigned y't no such slaughter of best shuld be vsed or had within this cite, and that suche penaltees be leuyed vpo the contrary doers as in the said acte of parlement ben expressed.
"Also in anoyding of lyke annoyauce. Plese it my Lord Mair, Alderme, and Como Councell, to enact that noo manor pulter or any other persone i this cytee kepe from hinsforth, within his hous, swans, gies, or dowk, upon a peyn therfore to be ordeigned."—pp. 83, 84, 3d. ed.
I believe that one item of "folk-faith" is that "farm-yard odours are healthy." I have often heard it affirmed at least; and, indeed, has not the common councilman, whom the Times has happily designated as the "defender of filth", totally and publicly staked his reputation on the dogma in its most extravagant shape, within the last few months? It is clear that nearly four centuries ago, the citizens of London thought differently; even though "the corupte savours and lothsom innoyaunc" were infinitely less loathsome than in the present Smithfield and the City slaughter-houses.
It would be interesting to know to what act of parliament Arnold's citizens refer, and whether it has ever been repealed. It is curious to notice, too, that the danger from infuriated beasts running wild through the streets is not amongst the evils of the system represented. They go further, however, and forbid even the killing within the city.
Moreover, it would really seem that the swan was not then a mere ornamental bird, either alive or dead, but an ordinary article of citizen-dinners, it being classed with "gies and dowks" in the business of the poulterer. At the same time, no mention being made of swine in any of these ordonnances or petitions, would at first sight seem to show that the flesh of the hog was in abhorrence with the Catholic citizen, as much perhaps as with the Jews themselves; at any rate, that it was not a vendible article of food in those days. When did it become so? This conclusion would, however, be erroneous; for amongst "the articles of the good governaûce of the cite of London" shortly following we have this:—
"Also yf ony persone kepe or norrysh hoggis, oxen, kyen, or mallardis within the ward, in noyoying of ther neyhbours."—p. 91.
The proper or appointed place for keeping hoggis was Hoggistone, now Hoxton; as Houndsditch2 was for the hounds.
There is another among these petitions to the Lord Mayor and corporation, worthy of notice, in connection with sanatory law.
"Also in avoydîg ye abhomynable savours causid by ye kepîg of ye kenell in ye mote and ye diches there, and î especiall by sethig of ye houndes mete wt roten bones, and vnclenly keping of ye hoûdes, wherof moche people is anoyed, soo yt when the wynde is in any poyte of the northe, all the fowle stynke is blowen ouer the citee. Plese it mi Lord Mair, Aldirmen, and Comen Coûcell, to ordeigne that the sayd kenell be amoued and sett in sô other côuenient place where as best shall seme them.
Mr. Cunningham, speaking of Houndsditch, merely quotes the words of Stow. It would appear that Stow's reason for the name is entirely conjectural; and indeed the same reason would justify the same name being applied to all the "ditches" in London in the year 1500, and indeed much later. This passage of Arnold throws a new light upon the
