Ames mentions an edition of Chaucer's Canter bury Tales collected by William Caxton, and printed by Wynken de Worde at Weftmeftre in 1495, folio. He does not appear to have feen it himself, nor have I ever met with any other authority for its exiftence, which however I do not mean to difpute: If there was fuch an edition we may be tolerably fure that it was only a copy of Caxton's.

This was certainly the cafe of both Pynfon's editions: he has prefixed to both the introductory part of Caxton's proheme to his fecor! edition without the leaft alteration. In what follows he fays that he purpotes to imprint his book (in the first edition]

by a copy of the faid Mafter Caxton," and in the fecond] "by a copy of William Caxton's Imprint

ing" (c). That the copy mentioned in both thefe paffages, by which Pynfon purposed to imprint, was really Caxton's fecond edition, is evident from the flighteft comparison of the three books. Pynfon's firit edition has no date, but is fuppofed (upon good grounds I think) to have been printed not long af ter 1491, the year of Caxton's death: his fecond edi tion (d) is dated in 1526, and was the firft in which

in the library of the Royal Society: both together would not make a complete one.

(c) See the prolemies to Pynfon's 1ft and 2d edit. in the Preface to Urry's Chaucer. There is a complete copy of Pynton's at edit. in the library of the Royal Society.

(d) I venture to call this Pynfon's 2d edit. though Ames (from fome notes of Bagford) fpeaks of editions in 1520 and 1522. He does not appear to have feen hem hinifelf. Mr. Weft had a copy of the edition of 1526, in which the name of the printer and the date of the impreffion are regularly fet down at the end of The Canterbury Tales; after that follow Troilus and Crefeide and The Boke of Faine, at the end of which lase

a collection of fome other pieces of Chaucer was added to The Canterbury Tales.

'The next edition which I have been able to meet with was printed by Thomas Godfray in 1532. If this be not the very edition which Leland speaks of as printed by Berthelette (e), with the affiftance of

is a note copied from Caxton's edition of the fame book, with this addition," and here followeth another of his workes ;" but in Mr. Weft's copy nothing followed. The writer of the Preface to ed. Urr. seems to have had the use of a copy of this edition in 1526, which contained fome other pieces of Chaucer's, and feveral by other hands. See the Pref. to ed. Urr.

(e) I think it neceffary to ftate Leland's account of the editions of Chaucer in his own words, from Tanner's Bibi. Brit. v. Chaucer. Non alienum meo erit inftituto palam facere, Gu lielmum Caxadunum, hominem nec indiligentem nec indoctum, et quem conftat prinum Londini artem exercuiffe typographicam, Chauceri opera, quotquot vel pretio vel precibus comparare potuit, in unum volumen collegiffe. Vicit tamen Caxodunicam editionem Bertholetus nofter operâ Gulielmi Thynni, qui multo labore, fedulitate, ac curâ ufus in perquirendis vetuftis exemplaribus, multa prima adjecit editioni. Sed nec in hac parte caruit Brianus Tucca, mihi familiaritate conjunctiffimus, et Anglicæ linguæ eloquentiâ mirificus, fuâ gioriâ, edità in poftremam impreffionem præfatione elimatâ,luculentâ, eleganti. Sequar igitur codicem paucis abhinc annis impreffum, et promiffum adponam fyllabon. He then gives a fyllabus of the Works of Chaucer contained in that edition, as follows: F1bule Cantiane xxiv, quarum duæ folutâ oratione fcriptæ ; fed Petri Aratoris fabula, quæ communi doctorum concenfu Chaucero, tanquam vero parenti, attribuitur, in utrâque editione, quia malos facerdotum mores vehementer increpavit, fuprefa eft. De arte amandi, alias Romaunce of the Rofe, &c.— Before i make any remarks upon this account I must obferve that it was drawn up by Leland before the year 1540: this ap pears from his New-Year's-Gift to Henry VIII. in the xxxvii yeare of his raygne, (1 Jan. 1546,) in which he fays exprefsiy

Mr. William Thynne, (as I rather fufpect it is) we may be affured that it was copied from that. Mr.

that he had spent the last fix years in travelling about the kingdom," ali his other occupations intermitted," [edit. 1745, p. 22, prefixed to Leland's Itin. v. i.] fo that his book De Vi ris Illuftribus, which he speaks of as finithed in the fame piece, p. 21, must have been finished before he fet out upon his travels. I will oblerve too, by the way, that the biographers of Leland seem to have confounded thefe laft fix years travels with his former travels in execution of the commiffion granted to him by Henry VIII. to search the libraries of monasteries, colleges, c. That commiffion was granted in the year 1533. 25 H. VIII. but how many years he spent in the execution of it there is no authority that I can find for determining with precision. In the account above-quoted Leland is certainly mistaken in saying that Caxton collected the Works of Chaucer into one volume. He printed two editions of The Canterbury Tales by themfelves, as has been thewn above; he alfo printed Boethius, Troilus and Creffida, and 'The Book of Fame, but each in a feparate volume, and fome fmaller pieces of Chaucer, intermixed with feveral of Lydgate, &c. in another volume, of which the contents may be feen in Middleton's Dilfert. p. 263, n. d; but it does not appear that he ever attempted to collect these separate publications into one volume.-Leland is alfo inaccurate, at leaft in reprefenting the edition by Thynne as coming next after that by Caxton, with out taking any notice of the intermediate editions by Pynfon, and especially that in 1526, in which an attempt was really made to collect the Works of Chaucer into one volume. It may appear prefumptuous to go further, and to charge him with inaccuracy in his defcription of that very edition by Thynne which he feems to have had before his eyes, but I am much inclined to fufpect (as I have intimated in the text) that the edition which he speaks of as printed by Bertilette was really printed by Godfray, and that the Preface of Brianus Tucca (Sir Brian Tuke) which he commends fo much, was nothing elfe but the prefatory address or dedication, to the Volume 1.

Thynne's Dedication to Henry VIII. ftands at the head of it, and the great number of Chaucer's Works,

King, which is prefixed to Godfray's and other later editions in the name of Mr. William Thynne. The mistake may not have been fo extravagant as it appears to be at firft. It is poffible that Eerthelette might be concerned in putting forth the edition of 1532 though it was printed by Godfray; and it is very probable that the Dedication, (which is in fuch a style as I think very likely to be commended by Leland) though ftanding in the name of Mr. William Thynne, was compofed for him by Sir Brian Tuke. Mr. Thynne himself, I apprehend, was rather a lover than a mafter of thefe ftudies. In support of this fufpicion I observe first, that the fyllabus which Leland has given of the contents of Berthelette's edition agrees exactly enough with the contents of the edition by Godfray, a few fmall pieces only being omitted by him. Second, the date of Godfray's edition in 1532 agrees perfectly with what Leland fays of the edition in queftion, (viz. that it was printed a few years before) and with the probable date of Mr. Thynne's edition, which appears to have been published not earlier than 1530, and certainly not later than 1532. It was not published earlier than 1530, because the French Grammar made by an Englishman, mentioned in the Dedication, muft mean, in all probability, L'esclaircifement de la langue Francoife by John Palgrave, the printing of which was finished by John Hawkins 18 July 1530, and the privilege granted on the 2 September following. It was not later than 1532, because the Dedication appears in Godfray's edition of that year. Third, if Berthelette had printed Mr. Thynne's edit. 1531, (we will fuppofe) it is inconceivable that Godfray thould fet about another edition fo immediately as to be able to publish it the very next year. Though the printers of that age had a very imperfect notion, I apprehend, of copyright at Common Law, they may be prefumed to have had always acertain common sense which would reftrain them from undertaking a new impreffion of a book while a confiderable number of copies of a former impreffion remained

never before published, which appear in it, fully entitles it to the commendations which have always

unfold, whether thefe copies belonged to themselves or to others. Befides, Godfray's edition has no appearance of a hafty piratical impreffion; it is upon a fine paper, and the types and prefs-work are remarkably neat and elegant. Fourth, I think we have Berthelette's own authority for believing that he did not print Mr. Thynne's edit. of Chaucer. In the Preface to Gower's Confeffio Amantis, which he published in this very year 1532, after having mentioned Troilus and Crefeide, he goes on thus; "The whiche noble warke, and many other of the fayde "Chaufer's that never were before imprinted, and thofe that "very fewe men knewe and fewer hadde them, be now of late " put forthe together in a fayre volume." There can be no doubt that in this paffage he refers to Mr. Thynne's edit. and if he had printed it himself I think he would certainly have claimed the honour of it. At the fame time the favourable manner in which he speaks of it, would lead one to imagine (as has been suggested above) that he had fome concern in it. -Upon the whole, therefore, I am perfuaded that the edit. by Godfray in 1532 is the edition which Leland fpeaks of as printed by Berthelette. I have given above what I conjecture to have been the probable grounds of his mistake. But indeed when we recollect the hurry in which this work of Leland must have been compiled, and that it was left by him unfinished, we need not feek for any other causes of the inaccuracies with which it abounds. In the latter part of the passage cited above he speaks of The Ploughman's Tale by the title of Petri Aratoris Fabula, confounding it, in the title at least, with Pierce Ploughman's Vi, fions; for I do not suppose that he meant to attribute the Vifions to Chaucer, though in fact the one might as well be attributed to him as the other.--Notwithstanding the immoderate length of this note I must not fupprefs another teftimony which may be produced in favour of the existence of an edition of Chau cer by Mr. Thynne diftinct from that printed by Godfray. Mr. Speght in his Life of Chaucer has the following pattage; M. William Thynne, in his firft printed booke of Chaucer's