Chapter I: Birthplace and Parentage

“I was born and lerned myn englissh in Kente in the weeld where I doubte not is spoken as brode and rude englissh as is in ony place of englond.” Thus briefly does William Caxton record the place of his birth and early years, and not withstanding prolonged and careful research nothing more precise has been ascertained.

The name of “weald,” rendered by Halliwell “forest,” or “woody country,” betokens the nature of the district, which at the time of the Conquest, and for centuries after, was covered with dense woods where thousands of wild hogs roamed and fattened. This extensive tract of country had no legally defined boundaries, and one can easily understand how Lambarde, the Kentish historian, was so puzzled when he attempted to describe it, that he declared it easier to deny altogether the existence of the Weald than to define its boundaries with any accuracy. An approximate idea of its geographical position may be gained by observing that a traveller, starting from Edenbridge, and journeying through Tunbridge, Marden, Biddenden, and Tenterden to the Romney marshes, would pass through its centre.

A century before Caxton’s birth a great change had commenced in the Weald of Kent. Hitherto the wool for which England was famous had been purchased by merchants and carried over to Flanders, for the purpose of being made into cloth, which was brought back for sale in England. Edward III, struck by the wealth and power which accrued to Flanders from the cloth manufacture established there, determined to try the experiment of establishing a factory in England.

The Weald, covered as it then was with forests, was of little value as land; and hither, aided in his design by the sanguinary feuds at that time raging among the trade guilds of the Low Countries, the King induced about eighty respectable Flemish families to migrate and carry on the manufacture of cloth in the country which produced the wool. Exempt from taxation, and favoured by the royal patronage and many special privileges, the colony throve and grew rapidly. The Flemish settlers soon became naturalised, and increased in wealth and influence year by year; so that in the fifteenth century “their trade was of great importance, and exercised by persons who possessed most of the landed property in the weald.” Thus writes Hasted in 1778, and adds, “Insomuch that almost all the antient families of these parts, now of large estates, are sprung from ancestors who have used this staple manufacture.”

We read Caxton’s narrative of his birth in a new light, when we bear in mind that the inhabitants of the Weald had a strong admixture of Flemish blood in their best families, and that cloth was their chief and, probably, only manufacture. We understand why the Kentish dialect was so broad and rude, and we enter more heartily into the amusing anecdote in Caxton’s preface to the “Eneydos,” where he tells of the good wife of Kent who knew what the Flemish word “eyren” meant, but understood not the English word “eggs.” “Certayn marchaunts,” says Caxton, “were in a ship in tamyse for to have sayled over the see into zelande, and for lacke of wynde thei taryed atte forlond . and wente to lande for to refreshe them And one of theym named sheffelde a mercer cam in to an hows and axed for mete . and specyally he axed after eggys And the good wyf answerde . that she coude speke no frenshe . And the marchaunt was angry . for he also coude speke no frenshe . but wolde have hadde egges, and she understode hym not, And thenne at last a nother sayd that he wolde have eyren, then the good wyf sayd that she understod hym wel.” Dr. Pegge, in his “Alphabet of Kenticisms,” gives “eiren” as the equivalent of “eggs” in the Kentish dialect of old English; and in any Dutch dictionary may be read: Eie, an egg; _pl._ eyren.

Here, then, in some rural homestead, surrounded by people who spoke English “not to be understonden,” was Caxton born. Kentish historians, anxious to localise the honour of having given birth to so famous a man, claim the ancient manor of Caustons, near Hadlow, in the Weald of Kent, as the original seat of the Caxton family. In the fifteenth century the name Caxton was usually pronounced _Caux_ton or _Caus_ton, the letter _a_ having a broad sound, and the _u_ being frequently inserted after it. Numerous instances are given in the “Archæologia Cantiana,” Vol. V, of names of Kentish towns having this broad pronunciation. Thus Francklyn occurs in old deeds as Frauncklyn; Malling as Mauling, and Wanting as Waunting. The letters _s_ and _x_ were often interchanged, and so Caxton writes _Alisaunder_ for _Alexander_, while to _ask_ appears in the “Chess Book” as to _axe_. We may further note that _Caxton_, in Cambridgeshire, is spelt in old documents, _Causton_, and, in the records of the Mercers’ Company, a certain Thomas Cacston appears as one of the liverymen appointed to welcome King Edward IV on his entry into London, and is immediately after entered as Thomas Cawston. Many years before Caxton’s birth, the manor of Caustons had been alienated from the Caxton family, by whom it had long been held; and although some offshoots may have remained in the neighbourhood, the most important branch appears to have taken root in Essex, and there adopted the name of the old Kentish hundred for their new residence; for among the wills now preserved at Somerset House is that of Johannes Cawston, of Hadlow Hall, Essex, dated 1490. Nothing, however, of interest can be gleaned from it.

We therefore conclude that William Caxton probably descended from the old stock of the Caustons, who owned the manor of Caustons, near Hadlow, in the Weald of Kent. The evidence is not strong, but yet there is no other locality in the Weald in which can be traced the slightest connection, either verbal or otherwise, with the family.

Caxton’s pedigree is quite unknown, no trace of any of his relatives, except a married daughter, having been discovered. The “William Caxton” who was buried in 1478, in the church of St. Margaret, Westminster, is asserted by some biographers to have been the father of our printer. This may be possible; but no relationship can be assumed from mere identity of name, for Caxtons, Caustons, or Cauxtons are to be found in many parts of England during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. William de Caxtone owned a house in the parish of St. Mary Abchurch, London, in 1311: a man of the same name paid his tax to the City authorities in 1441: and there was a family of Caxtons famous for centuries as merchants at Norwich, who used as their trade-mark three Cakes and a Tun. The will of Robert Caxton, alias Causton, is preserved at Canterbury; and at Sandwich, Tuxford, Newark, Beckenham, Westerham, and frequently in the early records of London does the name appear. The will of John Caxton, of Canterbury, likewise still exists: he was “of the parish of St. Alphage, Mercer,” and left to the church some wooden “deskys,” upon which the following device may still be seen.

When was Caxton born? To this question a more satisfactory answer can be given, for the date of his apprenticeship has fortunately been preserved in the records of the Mercers’ Company. It has generally been assumed that 1412 was the date of his birth, upon the sole ground that Caxton himself complained, in 1471, that he was growing old and weak, from which the inference has been drawn that he must then have seen at least sixty years. That this date, however, must be advanced is proved by the following extract from the earliest volume of the “Wardens’ Accounts” in the Archives of the Mercers’ Company. The entry occurs in a list of fees for the binding and enrolment of apprentices “pur lan deūnt passe cest assauoir des Fest de Saynt John Bap^{te} lan xvj du Roy Henr sisme;” that is, “for the year last passed that is to say from the Feast of St. John Baptist in the 16th year of King Henry VI [June 24, 1438],” and is literally as follows:--

Entres des Appñtices.

Item John large, } les appñtices de
Item Will’m Caxston, } Robert Large iiij s

We have here recorded the interesting fact that in 1438 Caxton was apprenticed to Robert Large. It is the first genuine date in his life with which we are acquainted, and affords us a starting-point from which can be reckoned, with some degree of certainty, the date of his birth.

The age of twenty-one has always been considered as the period when a man arrives at his _legal_ majority; but in the fifteenth century there was also what may be termed the _civic_ majority, which was not attained until three years later. This custom prevailed to the end of the seventeenth century; for in 1693 an Act of Common Council was passed enjoining the Chamberlain to ascertain that every candidate for admission to the freedom of the City had “reached the full age of twenty-four.” The phrase “quousque ad etatem suam xxiiij annorum peruenerit,” so commonly found in old wills, refers to this custom; and in view of it the indenture of an apprentice was always so drawn that on the commencement of his twenty-fifth year he might _issue_ from his apprenticeship. This necessarily caused a considerable variation in the length of servitude, which ranged according to the age of the youth, from seven years, the shortest term, to fourteen years. In the Archives of the Corporation of London (Lib. Dunthorne, 398_b_) is recorded a case brought before the Court of Aldermen in the year 1451. William Skydmore was apprenticed to Thomas Falkener, Citizen and Mercer, of London, for the term of _fourteen_ years; but Thomas Falkener having died, and the widow being unable to instruct Skydmore in his trade, and moreover keeping him badly clothed and worse fed, he appealed to the Court to discharge him from his apprenticeship. To this request, after inquiry, the Court acceded.

Taking the “entries” and “issues” in the Mercers’ records as a guide, ten years appears to have been the term most usual in the fifteenth century; but if we calculate his servitude to have lasted but seven years, Caxton could not have been more than seventeen years of age when apprenticed, and would therefore have been born not later than the year 1421. That he was not much younger is evident from the position he had gained for himself at Bruges only eleven years after he entered his apprenticeship, when he was accepted as surety for a sum equal to £1500 at the present day; so that we cannot be far wrong if we assume 1422-3 as the date of his birth.