It is needless to say that the whole story is a fabrication, and a curiously clumsy one. At the beginning of 1461 Henry VI. was deposed by Edward, so that these events must have taken place in or before 1460, and it is strange, with all the materials ready, nothing should be done for nearly ten years. The information about Gutenberg, who invented printing at Mainz and was never outside Germany, being engaged at printing in Haarlem, is preposterous. Lastly, no trace of the documents has ever been found. It is strange how Atkyns should have fixed on the name Corsellis for his mythical printer, for this uncommon name was that of a family of wealthy Dutch merchants settled in London at the time. Just ten years after the publication of Atkyns’ book, a Nicholas Corsellis, lord of the manor of Lower Marney, Essex, was buried in the church there, and on his tomb are some verses beginning, “Artem typographi miratam Belgicus Anglis Corsellis docuit.” Are we to infer from this that the family was a party to the fraud? The story, however, was revived about the middle of the eighteenth century, when Osborne, the bookseller, in his catalogue of June 1756 offered for sale an edition of Pliny’s Letters, printed by Corsellis at Oxford in 1469. In his note he added that the printer had produced other works in 1470, and that fragments of a Lystrius of this date were known. Herbert continues the story as follows: “This raised the curiosity of the book collectors, who considered this article as a confirmation of what R. Atkins had asserted about printing at Oxford. They all flocked to Osborne’s shop, who instead of the book, produced a letter from a man of Amsterdam filled with frivolous excuses for not sending them to him. They were disappointed, and looked on the whole as a Hum; however, the _Plinii Epistolæ_ and _G. Lystrii Oratio_ afterwards appeared at an auction at Amsterdam and were bought for the late Dr Ant. Askew, and were sold again at an auction of his books by Baker and Leigh in Feb. 1775.”