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 Burgundiae ducissa regis Edwardi
sorore."--Joannes BALE, 1559.
"Gvilhelmvs Caxtonus, natione Anglus. Vir pius, doctus, etc. In
Flandria quidem triginta annis vixit cum Margareta Burgundiae 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?