_CAXTON A PRINTER._
The evidence as to where and from whom Caxton acquired his knowledge of
the Art of Printing has been considered by nearly every bibliographer
as being confined entirely to the information obtained from Caxton’s
own Prologues and Epilogues, with the one addition of the well-known
quatrain of Wynken de Worde, at the end of his “Bartholomæus de
Proprietatibus Rerum.” The argument from technical peculiarities in the
books themselves has hitherto been almost entirely overlooked, although
a mass of the truest, because unintentional evidence may be found from
the attentive study of these dumb witnesses.
Mr. Bradshaw, of Cambridge, has most truly observed, in his “Classified
Index,” that the bibliographer should “make such an accurate and
methodical study of the _types_ used and _habits of printing_
observable at different presses as to enable him to observe and be
guided by these characteristics in settling the date of a book which
bears no date upon the surface.”[5] But the great difficulty in the way
of this systematic study is the impossibility of having the books side
by side, for their rarity is so great that in no one existing library
can they all be found.
The books printed in Caxton’s type No. 1, used only at Bruges, are five
in number, although we can trace his direct connection with but two of
them.
1. “The Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye,” with Prologues and
Epilogues.
2. “Le Recueil des Histoires de Troye.”
3. “The Game and Playe of the Chesse,” with Prologue by Caxton.
4. “Les Fais et Proesses du Chevalier Jason.”
5. “Meditacions sur les Sept Pseaulmes penitenciaulx.”
To these must be added one book printed at Bruges in type
No. 2.
6. “Les Quatre Derrennieres Choses.”
Before analysing the evidence supplied by Caxton’s remarks and dates,
it is necessary to explain how easily a mistake may be made, and an
erroneous conclusion drawn, unless care be taken to remember the effect
of the change of style upon the commencement of the year. In England,
from the thirteenth century until 1752, the new year began on March
25th; while in Holland and Flanders it commenced on Easter Day. Neglect
of this fact has led to many historical errors. Thus, one historian
states that Charles I was beheaded on January 30th, 1648, whereas
others assert that the event took place on the same day in 1649; one
dates the flight of James II from his kingdom in February, 1688, whilst
others date it in 1689. In these and many other instances one writer
takes the old style of beginning the year, whilst others take the new
style, each being right from his own standpoint. In a lately discovered
tract printed by Caxton, and known as the “Sex Epistolae,” we have the
text of several letters which passed between the Pope and the Doge of
Venice, which will be more particularly described under “Books in type
No. 4.” It is merely mentioned here as affording an apt illustration
of the foregoing remarks. The letters commence on December 11th,
1482, and succeed one another in due order until the 7th of January,
1482, and the end of February, 1482. This was no blunder, for the old
year continued until March 25th, which was New-Year’s Day, 1483.
Returning now to the consideration of Caxton’s first lessons in the
Art of Printing, we will examine each of the books attributed to him,
commencing with
“THE RECUYELL.”--This occupies the foremost place, because Caxton
himself tells us that with it he began his career as a printer. Its
Prologues and Epilogues contain curious and interesting gossip from
Caxton’s own pen, telling us how the Duchess of Burgundy, in whose
service he then was, commanded him to complete the translation, which
he had begun but not advanced with. He tells us that he began to
translate the work at Bruges on March 1st, 1468, which, as the year in
Flanders did not then commence till Easter, was really 1469, that he
continued it at Ghent, and finished at Cologne on September 19th, 1471,
thus making a period of two years and a half; that on its completion
he presented it to the duchess, who rewarded him handsomely; that many
persons desired copies of it, so that, finding the labour of writing
too wearisome for him, and not expeditious enough for his friends, he
had practised and learnt, at his great charge and expense, to ordain
the book in print, to the end that every man might have them at once.
As was natural to a person making practical acquaintance for the first
time with the effects of typography, Caxton ends with noticing what in
his eyes, accustomed to see one copy finished before another was begun,
was the most wonderful feature of the new art, namely, that all the
copies were begun upon one day, and were finished upon one day.
The periods of time here mentioned by Caxton require notice. He began
to translate on March 1st, 1469, but soon relinquished his self-imposed
task, after writing no more than five or six quires (or sections of
four or five sheets each). After the lapse of two years, in March,
1471, he resumed the translation, and in the following September he
presented the duchess with the completed work. Now, six months would
have been a very likely time for the translation and a fair copy
thereof to take; but it would have been impossible to have accomplished
the printing also in that space of time, especially as the whole
translation was finished before the first sheet was printed, as will
be hereafter shown. We may also notice, that the duration of Caxton’s
visit to Cologne must have been very short, as his absence from Bruges
lasted no more than six months.
“LE RECUEIL” has but one date, and that evidently refers to the
literary compilation alone, and affords no clue whatever to the year
of printing. Indeed, the numerous copies still extant in manuscript
prove that the work enjoyed considerable popularity before it came
under the hands of the printer. The date of the printing of this
book has been fixed, by several writers, between 1464 and 1467, from
the consideration that Le Fèvre, the compiler, is spoken of in the
prologue as chaplain to the Duke of Burgundy, and in such a manner as
to signify that the duke was then living. But in the English version
there is a material difference: Le Fèvre is not styled there as in the
French, “Chappellain de montres redoubte seigneur Monseigneur le Duc
Phillipe de Bourgoingne,” but “chapelayn vnto the ryght noble glorious
and mighty prynce, _in his tyme_, Phelip duc of Bourgoyne.” Philip,
therefore, was alive when “Le Recueil” was printed, but dead when “The
Recuyell” went to press. The duke died in 1467; and it is therefore
inferred that “Le Recueil” must date between 1464 and 1467, while “The
Recuyell” must be later than 1467. That this should be considered as
proving anything more than that the original French was compiled during
the lifetime of Philip, and that when Caxton translated the same the
duke was dead, seems unaccountable. All the copies of “Le Recueil,”
both manuscript and printed, followed the wording of the original, and
the printer would no more think of altering it in 1476, the probable
date of imprint, than the transcriber would in copying the same
twenty-five years later. The National Library at Paris has a manuscript
of this very book written after 1500, but reproducing exactly the
clause which, in the printed edition, is considered to be a proof of
its having been executed prior to 1467. Caxton altered the prologue
of Le Fèvre to suit his own time, because he was translating; but, in
printing from the manuscript of another (assuming his connection with
“Le Recueil”), he would have been in opposition to the practice of
his age had he altered the original. His translation was in its turn
printed and reprinted, word for word, long after it was out of date.
There is, therefore, no reason whatever for asserting that “Le Recueil,”
written in 1464, was printed before “The Recuyell,” translated in 1474,
and sent to press about the same date. In fact, the whole tone of the
epilogue to Book III of “The Recuyell,” leads unquestionably to the
conclusion that _that_ was the very first occasion on which Caxton
had busied himself with typography. He would never have said, “I have
learned to ordain _this book_ in printe at my great charge and expense,”
if he had already printed one or two others. M. Bernard assumes that
Caxton had nothing to do with the printing of “Le Recueil,” and that it
was executed before he turned his attention to the new art. This
opinion, however, has not a single fact to support it.
“THE CHESS BOOK” affords but little evidence of value, its prologue
being, for the most part, merely a translation of that written by
Jehan de Vignay for the French original. It offers, indeed, one date;
but that is open to question in its application. “Fynysshid the last
day of marche, 1474,” are the concluding words of the epilogue. But
what was finished, the translation, or the printing? From the context
it was probably the translation, although the printing was not many
months later. This date also must be advanced a year; for, as already
noticed, the new year did not commence, in Flanders, till Easter Day,
which fell, in that year, on April 10th; so that March 31st, 1474, was,
according to the modern reckoning, March 31st, 1475.
The prologue to the second edition throws a little light on the history
of the first. Caxton there says, in reference to his connection with
the book: “... an excellent doctor of divinity ... made a book of the
Chess moralised, which, _at such time as I was resident in Bruges_,
came into my hands.... And to the end that some which have not seen
it, nor understand french nor latin, I deliberated in myself to
translate into our maternal tongue; and when I had so achieved the
said translation, _I did do set in imprinte_, a certain number of them
which anon were depesshed and sold.” He here appears to mean that upon
the completion of the translation he employed some one else to print
it:--“I did do set in imprinte.” “Did do,” according to the idiom of
those days, was commonly used for doing a thing through the medium of
another. The phrase was borrowed from the French--“plain pouoir de
prendre et faire prendre les larrons,” is the wording of an ordinance
dated in the fifteenth century. “He did do be said to the messenger,”
for “he caused to be said,” is found on folio 22 of the “History of
Jason.” “The Emperor did do make a gate of marble” occurs in the second
edition of the “Chess Book,” fol. 85. Similar examples abound, so that
we may fairly conclude that Caxton did not himself print the first
edition of the “Chess Book,” but that both the translation and the
printing were executed in Bruges.
[Illustration: Plate VI.
_Type No. 1._
_From “The Chess-book,” 1st Edition._]
The other books, namely, the French “Jason,” the “Meditacions,” and the
“Quatre Derrennieres Choses,” contain the bare text without remark or
date of any kind, being, as bibliographers say, _sine ullâ notâ_.
The whole of the literary evidence therefore may be briefly summed up
thus: “The Recuyell” was translated in 1471, and printed some time
after; the “Chess Book” was printed after 1474, and probably in the
latter half of 1475; and “Le Recueil” was compiled in 1464, but, like
the other four, affords no evidence of date of the printing, which was
probably about 1476.
We will now examine the testimony afforded by a comparison of the
technical peculiarities of these six books. In collating “The
Recuyell,” the make-up of the sections, at the beginning of the volume,
is worth noting. It was the practice of Caxton, as of other printers,
to commence the printing of his books with the text, any preface which
might be requisite, being added afterwards in a separate section,
with a different kind of signature. When, however, the whole of the
manuscript, prologue as well as text, was complete before it came into
the printer’s hands, there was no occasion for any such arrangement.
This appears to have been the case with regard to “The Recuyell,” where
nothing has been added at the beginning, as the first section of five
sheets includes all the introductory matter, as well as a portion of
the text. Now the first page, which bears the date of the conclusion
of the translation, being on the same sheet as a portion of the text,
it is evident that the whole volume must have been in manuscript
before any part was set up in type. We may infer, indeed, from his
own description of the effect that so much writing had upon him, that
Caxton issued several manuscript copies before he thought of using
the printing-press. The copy presented to the duchess was undoubtedly
manuscript; or else how could Caxton have chronicled in the printed
work her acceptance of the book and his reward for the present? And
this again leads to the supposition that the portion of the epilogue
relating to the printing was added by Caxton to his original manuscript
when he determined to print it.
For precisely similar reasons, Caxton’s prologue to the “Chess Book,”
which was a translation or adaptation of the original French, is also
a portion of the first section of the volume. None of the other books
under review having prologues, we will proceed to a comparison of some
other typographical particulars.
The following table will show some of the technical features of each
book, and some of what may be called the “habits” of the printer:--
┌─────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ Type No. │
│ │ │ No. of Sheets in a Section. │
│ │ │ │ No. of Lines in a Page. │
│ │ │ │ │ Measurement of a Page.-- │
│ │ │ │ │ Inches. │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Spacing of │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Lines │
│ No. Title. Size. │ │ │ │ │ │ Signature │
├─────────────────────────────┼───┼───┼────┼────────┼────────┼───────────┤
│ 1 The Recuyell Fol. │ 1 │ 5 │ 31 │ 5 × 7⅜ │ uneven │ none │
│ 2 Le Recueil Fol. │ 1 │ 5 │ 31 │ 5 × 7⅜ │ uneven │ none │
│ 3 The Chess Book Fol. │ 1 │ 4 │ 31 │ 5 × 7⅜ │ uneven │ none │
│ 4 Les Fais du Jason Fol. │ 1 │ 4 │ 31 │ 5 × 7⅜ │ even │ none │
│ 5 Meditacions Fol. │ 1 │ 4 │ 31 │ 5 × 7⅜ │ even │ none │
│ 6 Les 4^{tre} │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ derrennieres choses Fol. │ 2 │ 4 │ 28 │ 5 × 7⅜ │ uneven │ none │
└─────────────────────────────┴───┴───┴────┴────────┴────────┴───────────┘
From this table we perceive,--
First, That the first five books are printed with the same types, are
all of the same size, and all without signatures; that all agree
exactly in the size of the page; and that the even spacing of the lines
in the “Meditacions” and the “Jason” proves that they were produced
later than the others.
Secondly, That the five books in type No. 1 may be considered as the
production of one printer.
Who, then, was this printer? When we attentively examine the shape of
the letters in type No. 1, we notice a remarkable similarity between it
and that of the writing of many Bruges manuscripts of the same period,
which would induce us, at first sight, to attribute the design of the
type to some artist of that city.
M. Bernard, whose opinion is of great weight, where his nationality
is not concerned, traces the pattern of type No. 1 directly to Colard
Mansion of Bruges. Speaking of a manuscript in the National Library at
Paris, written by Colard Mansion’s own hand, he says, “This book is
written in old bâtarde, and in exactly the same character as the types
of ‘Le Recueil des histoires de Troyes;’” yet he attributes the cutting
of the types to a French artist, and the printing to a German, Ulric
Zel. The paper he also claims for a French mill, on account of the
_fleurs de lis_, and the Gothic ~p~ with the quatrefoil, ignoring the
fact that these are common Flemish watermarks of the fifteenth century,
and found in abundance in the books from the Bruges and Westminster
presses.
That any of these books in type No. 1 were printed by Ulric Zel, or any
other Cologne printer, I cannot for a moment believe. It is possible,
of course, that Zel, if employed to do so, could have designed and
cut types of the gros-bâtarde pattern, although, as a fact, he never
used such types himself; but all the Cologne printers of that period
had their own peculiarities and habits, which were not at all those of
the Bruges printers. Zel, from an early period, printed two pages at a
time, as may be easily verified where a crooked page occurs; for the
other page printed on the same side of the sheet will in every case be
found crooked also. Now, “The Recuyell” was certainly printed page by
page, as were likewise all the books from Mansion’s press. And Caxton,
when printing his quarto books, cut the paper up and still printed
but one page at a time. This accounts for the entire rejection by
Mansion,[6] and the sparing use by Caxton of the quarto size for their
productions, as it necessitated twice as much press-work as the larger
size. But stronger evidence is to be found in the fact that Zel, after
1467, always spaced out the lines of his books to an even length, and
would have taught any one learning the art from him to do the same;
yet this improvement was not adopted by either Mansion or Caxton until
several years later. Whoever may have been the instructor of Mansion
and Caxton, and whatever may have been the origin of their typography,
the opinion that either of them, after learning the art in an advanced
school such as that of Cologne, would have adopted in their first
productions, without any necessity for so doing, primitive customs
which they had never been taught, and returned in after years by slow
degrees to the rules of their original tuition, has only to be plainly
stated to render it untenable.
The printer of all these works was undoubtedly Colard Mansion,
who had just before established his press at Bruges--who cast the
types on his own model for Caxton, and instructed him in the art
while printing _with_ and _for_ him “The Recuyell” and the “Chess
Book”--who _certainly_ printed “Les Quatre Derrennieres Choses”--who
supplied Caxton with the material for the establishment of a press in
England--who, about the time of Caxton’s departure, used the same type
for “Le Recueil”--and who, at a still later period, printed alone the
“Jason” and the “Meditacions.”
We will now examine “Les Quatre Derrennieres Choses,” of which the only
copy known is in the Old Royal collection in the British Museum. Like
all Colard Mansion’s books, and unlike any one of Caxton’s, it is in
French. It is printed in type No. 2, the type of the “Dictes” of 1477,
and all the early books which issued from the Westminster press. Then
the peculiar appearance of the red ink at once attracts attention. The
two colours have been evidently printed at the same pull of the press,
as was Colard Mansion’s practice. Here the same process of wiping
the black ink off lines purposely isolated, and then re-inking them
with red, has been resorted to; and here, too, as in the acknowledged
productions of the Bruges press, the same defects have been produced;
the red ink having a tarnished appearance from the subjacent remains
of the black, and the black lines nearest the red having received a
red edging, which, however interesting as a connecting link between
two celebrated printers, by no means increases their typographical
beauty. Now, as no Cologne printer is known to have resorted to this
unique method of working in colours, I feel no hesitation in ascribing
“Les Quatre Derrennieres Choses” either to Colard Mansion or to Caxton
working under his tuition; and as this peculiarity is nowhere found in
Caxton’s productions of the Westminster press, the former would seem
the more likely conjecture.
The connection thus established between the types used by Caxton in his
first attempts in England and those used by Colard Mansion is still
further strengthened by the fact that the form of the &c., peculiar
to type No. 1, is in several instances, by an evident mixing of the
founts, used instead of the proper sort belonging to type No. 2. This
furnishes positive proof that the two founts were _under one roof_,
whether at Cologne or Bruges, or elsewhere. Whoever printed the five
books in type No. 1 most certainly owned type No. 2 also.
Against all this, however, has to be placed the direct assertion
of Wynken de Worde, who, in the proheme to his undated edition of
“Bartholomæus de Proprietatibus Rerum,” gives the following rhyme:--
“And also of your charyte call to remembraunce
The soule of William Caxton first prynter of this boke
In laten tonge at Coleyn hyself to auaũce
That euery well disposyd man may thereon loke.”
The phraseology of this verse is very ambiguous. Are we to understand
that the _editio princeps_ of “Bartholomæus” proceeded from Caxton’s
press, or that he only printed the first Cologne edition? that he
issued a _translation_ of his own, which is the only way in which
the production of the work could advance him in the Latin tongue?
or, that he printed in Latin to advance his own interests? The last
seems the most probable reading. But though the words will bear
many constructions, they are evidently intended to mean that Caxton
printed “Bartholomæus” at Cologne. Now this seems to be merely a
careless statement of Wynken de Worde; for if Caxton did really print
“Bartholomæus” in that city, it must have been with his own types and
presses, as the workmanship of his early volumes proves that he had no
connection with the Cologne printers, whose practices were entirely
different. The time necessary for the production of so extensive a work
would have been considerable; therefore, as Caxton’s stay at Cologne
on the occasion of his finishing the translation of “Le Recueil” was
but short, the printing of this apocryphal “Bartholomæus” would have
been at a subsequent visit, of which there is no record. No edition
has yet been discovered which can, by any stretch of the imagination,
be attributed to Caxton, although there is more than one old undated
edition belonging to the German school of printing. Accuracy of
information was in those days not much studied, and to a general
carelessness about names and dates Wynken de Worde added a negligence
peculiarly his own. We may excuse him for using Caxton’s device in
several books which by their dates and types are known to have been
printed by himself, as well as for putting Caxton’s name as printer
to the edition of the “Golden Legend,” printed in 1493, two years
after his master’s death. Such inaccuracies were thought but little
of at that time. But how can we account for the blundering alteration
in the 1495 edition of the “Polycronicon,” where Wynken de Worde,
making himself the speaker in Caxton’s prologue, four years after his
master’s death, promises to carry the history down to 1485; or for the
still greater error in the “Dictes” of 1528, in which, while adopting
Caxton’s epilogue, but substituting his own for Caxton’s name, he makes
all the transactions there related happen between Earl Rivers (who
had been fifty years in his grave) and himself? Wynken de Worde’s
blunders in statements are well matched by his blunders in workmanship,
of which, however, we will quote but two. In Caxton’s edition of the
“Stans Puer ad Mensam,” the third and fourth pages of the poem were
accidentally transposed; yet Wynken de Worde, notwithstanding the break
of sequence, blindly reprints the error! Again, in his edition of
“The Horse, the Shepe, and the Ghoos,” he actually omits a whole page
without discovering his mistake! Other examples might easily be quoted,
but enough has been adduced to show that Wynken de Worde was by no
means careful in his statements.[7]
We must remember that Wynken de Worde, moreover, was too young to
have had any personal knowledge of Caxton’s early efforts, and that
the vast importance of the art to the entire world, and the interest
attaching to its origin, were ideas which would find no place in the
mind of a fifteenth-century printer. We must not, therefore, regard
De Worde’s statement as deliberately made for the purpose of telling
posterity something about Caxton. Lewis, Caxton’s first biographer, was
very sceptical concerning this Cologne edition of “Bartholomæus.” “Its
having a Latin title,” he says, “might possibly deceive De Worde, and
make him think it was printed in Latin. However this may be, it does
not appear that any edition of it, printed by Caxton or any one else,
either in Latin or English, that year, is now in being.”
Perhaps De Worde, who reprinted “The Recuyell,” had some vague
recollection of Caxton having stated that he had been at Cologne, and
carelessly adopted the idea as giving point and rhyme to his verses.
The following anecdotes illustrate in a curious manner the
typographical connection between Mansion and Caxton. A bookseller
of Paris purchased an old volume for the moderate sum of one louis.
Ignorant of its great value, he took it to M. de La Serna Santander,
and asked him if he thought two louis too dear. “No,” replied the
wary bibliographer, and gave him the money. That volume is now in
the National Library at Paris, and contains, bound together in the
_original_ boards, the “Quadrilogue,” printed by Mansion at Bruges,
and the French “Jason,” printed in Caxton’s type No. 1. Something
similar to this happened in 1853, when Mr. Winter Jones discovered in
the Library of the British Museum, “Les Quatre Derrennieres Choses,”
in Caxton’s type No. 2, bound up with the “Meditacions,” in type No.
1, and with contemporary handwriting running from the last page of
one work to the first of the other, the volume being evidently in its
original state, just as it was printed and bound at Bruges, in the
little workshop of Colard Mansion over the church porch of St. Donatus.
Here, perhaps, I may be excused if I venture to build a brief
history, founded, in the absence of sure foundation, in many parts on
probability only, but which may nevertheless be welcome to some as an
attempt to draw into a consistent narrative the scattered threads of
Caxton’s career between 1471 and his establishment at Westminster.
Caxton, having finished and been rewarded for his trouble in
translating “Le Recueil” for the Duchess of Burgundy, found his book in
great request. The English nobles at Bruges wished to have copies of
this the most favourite romance of the age, and Caxton found himself
unable to supply the demand with sufficient rapidity. This brings us
to the year 1472 or 1473. Colard Mansion, a skilful caligrapher, must
have been known to Caxton, and may even have been employed by him to
execute commissions. Mansion, who had obtained some knowledge of the
art of printing, although certainly not from Cologne, had just begun
his typographical labours at Bruges, and was ready to produce copies by
means of the press, if supported by the necessary patronage and funds.
Caxton found the money, and Mansion the requisite knowledge, by the
aid of which appeared “The Recuyell,” the first book printed in the
new type, and moreover the first book printed in the English language.
This, probably, was not accomplished till 1474, and was succeeded,
on Caxton’s part, in another year, by an issue of the “Chess Book,”
which, as we are informed in a second edition, was “anone depesshed and
solde.” Mansion, finding success attended the new adventure, printed
the French “Recueil,” and, after Caxton’s return to England, the French
“Jason” and the “Meditacions.” The three French works were doubtless
published by Mansion alone, as Caxton is not known to have printed
a single book in French, although perfectly acquainted with that
language. Caxton, having thus printed at Bruges “The Recuyell” and the
“Chess Book” with types either wholly or in part belonging to Mansion,
now obtained a new fount of the pattern of the large bâtarde already in
use by Mansion, but smaller in size, with the intention of practising
the art in England. To test its capabilities, “Les Quatre Derrennieres
Choses” was then produced under the immediate supervision of Mansion.
Early in 1476 Caxton appears to have taken leave of the city where he
had resided for five and thirty years, and to have returned to his
native land laden with a more precious freight than the most opulent
merchant-adventurer ever dreamt of, and to endow his country with a
blessing greater than any other which had ever been bestowed, save only
the introduction of Christianity.
FOOTNOTES:
[5] A classified Index of the fifteenth-century books in the collection
of M. J. de Meyer. 8vo. London, 1870.
[6] Van Praet, Brunet, and especially Campbell in his “Annales de la
Typographie Néerlandaise,” err in describing “Le Purgatoire des mauvais
Maris,” printed by Colard Mansion, as a “petit in-4°.” The copy
described is cut a little more than usual, but the watermark which _is
in the middle of the page_ proves the size to be folio, whereas had it
been quarto the watermark must have been in the back and partly hidden
by the binding.
[7] William Caxton, except in the occasional interchange of _i_ and
_y_, which were at that period considered as equivalents, never altered
the orthography of his name, a fact the more noticeable as the name
certainly varied in pronunciation: but Wynken de Worde, although
mentioning his master’s name but eight times, contrived to make the
four variations of Caxton, Caxston, Caston, and Caxon. With regard to
his own name Wynken de Worde appears to have tried how many variations
he _could_ invent, of which the following list is not even complete:--
Wynken de Worde.
Wynden de Worde.
Wynkyn de Worde.
Wynkyn Theworde.
Wynkyn the Worde.
Wynkyn de Word.
VVinquin de VVorde.
Wynandus de Worde.
Wynandus de word.
winandus de worde.
Vunandus de worde.
Vuinandi de vuorde.
VVinand i VVordensi.
Winandi de Wordensis.
[Illustration]