SEPARATE BOOKS.

1. Jerome (“1468,” see p. [1]).

The treatise of Tyrannius Rufinus on the Apostles’ Creed, here ascribed to St. Jerome, was undoubtedly the first product of the Oxford press. It bears the date of 17 December, 1468, as the day on which the printing was finished. The colophon is clearly printed and bears no mark of haste, nor does it show the smallest trace of alteration in any of the copies seen by the present writer. Saturday is a reasonable day on which to conclude a work. A facsimile of the colophon is given in plate II.

Unfortunately for the peace of the bibliographer two spectres have haunted this book, one of which “pulveris exigui jactu” has been laid, but the other is not yet gone, although there is a prospect of ultimate eviction.

I. The Corsellis forgery.

In 1664 Richard Atkyns, a Gloucestershire gentleman of some position, and educated at Balliol, issued a book, the title of which sets forth with unusual clearness the object of the volume:—“The Original and Growth of Printing: Collected Out of History, and the Records of this Kingdome. Wherein is also Demonstrated, That Printing appertaineth to the Prerogative Royal; and is a Flower of the Crown of England. By Richard Atkyns, Esq:” (London, printed by John Streater, for the Author, MDCLXIV: quarto: pp. [12] + 24). Atkyns’s object was to recommend himself to Charles II’s attention by proving that printing was a royal privilege: and for this it was very desirable that there should be evidence of the introduction of the art into England under royal protection. The testimony of Stowe—corroborated by Howell—that “William Caxton of London, Mercer,” introduced it in 1471, was unsuitable. Atkyns, however, came upon a copy of the “1468” Oxford book, and “the same most worthy Person who trusted me with the aforesaid Book, did also present me with the Copy of a Record and Manuscript in Lambeth-House, heretofore in his Custody, belonging to the See (and not to any particular Arch-Bishop of Canterbury); the substance whereof was this (though I hope, for publique satisfaction, the Record it self, in its due time, will appear).” Then ensues the following story:—

Thomas Bourchier, Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury, moved the then King (Hen. the 6th) to uſe all poſſible means for procuring a Printing-Mold (for ſo ’twas there called) to be brought into this Kingdom; the King (a good Man, and much given to Works of this Nature) readily hearkned to the Motion; and taking private Advice, how to effect His Deſign, concluded it could not be brought about without great Secrecy, and a conſiderable Sum of Money given to ſuch Perſon or Perſons, as would draw off ſome of the Workmen from Harlein in Holland, where John Cuthenberg had newly invented it, and was himſelf perſonally at Work: ’Twas reſolv’d, that leſs then one Thouſand Marks would not produce the deſir’d Effect: Towards which Sum, the ſaid Arch-Biſhop preſented the King with Three Hundred Marks. The Money being now prepared, the Management of the Deſign was committed to Mr. Robert Turnour, who then was of the Roabs to the King, and a Perſon moſt in Favour with Him, of any of his Condition: Mr. Turnour took to his Aſſiſtance Mr. Caxton, a Citizen of good Abilities, who Trading much into Holland, might be a Creditable Pretence, as well for his going, as ſtay in the Low Countries: Mr. Turnour was in Diſguiſe (his Beard and Hair ſhaven quite off) but Mr. Caxton appeared known and publique. They having received the ſaid Sum of One Thouſand Marks, went firſt to Amſterdam, then to Leyden, not daring to enter Harlein it ſelf; for the Town was very jealous, having impriſoned and apprehended divers Perſons, who came from other Parts for the ſame purpoſe: They ſtaid till they had ſpent the whole One Thouſand Marks in Gifts and Expences: So as the King was fain to ſend Five Hundred Marks more, Mr. Turnour having written to the King, that he had almoſt done his Work; a Bargain (as he ſaid) being ſtruck betwixt him and two Hollanders, for bringing off one of the Work men, who ſhould ſufficiently diſcover and teach this New Art: At laſt, with much ado, they got off one of the Under-Workmen, whoſe Name was Frederick Corſells (or rather Corſellis), who late one Night ſtole from his Fellows in Diſguiſe, into a Veſſel prepared before for that purpoſe; and ſo the Wind (favouring the Deſign) brought him ſafe to London.

’Twas not thought ſo prudent, to ſet him on Work at London, (but by the Arch-Biſhops meanes, who had been Vice-Chancellor, and afterwards Chancellor of the Univerſity of Oxon) Corſellis was carryed with a Guard to Oxon; which Guard conſtantly watch’d, to prevent Corſellis from any poſſible Escape, till he had made good his Promiſe, in teaching how to Print: So that at Oxford Printing was firſt ſet up in England, which was before there was any Printing-Press, or Printer, in France, Spain, Italy, or Germany, (except the City of Mentz) which claimes Seniority, as to Printing, even of Harlein it ſelf, calling her City, Urbem Maguntinam Artis Tipographicæ Inventricem primam, though ’tis known to be otherwiſe, that City gaining that Art by the Brother of one of the Workmen of Harlein, who had learnt it at Home of his Brother, and after ſet up for himſelf at Mentz.

This Preſs at Oxon was at leaſt ten years before there was any Printing in Europe (except at Harlein, and Mentz) where alſo it was but new born. This Preſs at Oxford, was afterwards found inconvenient, to be the ſole Printing-place of England, as being too far from London, and the Sea: Whereupon the King ſet up a Preſs at St. Albans, and another in the Abby of Weſtminster, where they Printed ſeveral Bookes of Divinity and Phyſick, (for the King, for Reaſons beſt known to himſelf and Council) permitted then no Law-Books to be Printed; nor did any Printer exerciſe that ART, but onely ſuch as were the Kings ſworn Servants; the King himſelf having the Price and Emolument for Printing Books.

Printing thus brought into England, was moſt Graciouſly received by the King, and moſt cordially entertained by the Church, the Printers having the Honour to be ſworn the King’s Servants, and the Favour to Lodge in the very Boſome of the Church; as in Weſtminſter, St. Albans, Oxon, &c.

As no one believes in this story it is not worth while to do more than to point out that no corroboration of it has ever been found, (much less the original record discovered), that Henry VI was deposed 4 March 1460
1, and that the type shows no resemblance to that of Haarlem. Nor does the rest of the book concern us. The tale, however, in the absence of contradiction, obtained some vogue, so that we find for instance in Layer Marney church in Essex some such inscription as the following “Præ-missus, non amissus, Nicolas Corsellis Armiger Dominus hujus manerii hic requiescit, hâc vitâ ad meliorem commigratus Anno D 1674 Die Octobris 19o.

Artem typographi miratam Belgicus Anglis

Corsellis docuit, Regis prece munere victus.

Hic fuit extremis mercator cognitus Indis:

Incola jam cælis, virtus sua famaque vivent.

Johannes Corsellis ejus Executor & Consanguineus hoc monumentum posuit.” The Corsellis family came from Flanders in the 17th century. There is no question that this clumsy forgery of Atkyns has had its effect in befogging the subject to which it relates, and has predisposed critics to suspect the date of the first Oxford book.

II. The disputed date, “1468.”

The first who threw doubt on the recorded date of the Jerome was Conyers Middleton in his Dissertation on the origin of Printing published in 1735, and since then the opinion that 1468 is an error for 1478 (an X having dropped out of “MCCCCLXXVIII”) has steadily gained ground with the advance of critical methods, until authorities like Bradshaw and Blades and Duff have come to regard the question as settled. The only two separate and formal defences of the date (not counting incidental passages in books) are a MS. in the Guildhall Library in London, in a volume of Stukeley’s Palæographia Britannica marked B. 2. 1, perhaps written in about 1770, and S. W. Singer’s Some Account of the book printed at Oxford in MCCCCLXVIII (London, 1812, 50 copies for private distribution), a work which the author subsequently called in as far as he was able. In the former the arguments are of a general character, such as that if, as Middleton asserted, the King had not leisure to attend to such matters during Civil War, the archbishop had, and that Caxton’s silence counts for nothing in the general obscurity which surrounds the earliest printing presses. The Corsellis story is accepted. Singer is more scientific, as befits the later date, and adduces several of the technical arguments which may still be used.

It is now time to state the present aspect of the dispute, and to ascertain how far the date “1468” is not only dubious but untenable. The arguments against the date may be stated in presumed order of their cogency, with the remarks on the other side which they severally suggest.

1. The presence of Signatures.

The Jerome presents to our eyes the ordinary signatures to which we are accustomed in fifteenth-century books, that is to say the marks a j, a ij, a iij, a iiij on the recto of each of the four leaves which form the first half of the sections of eight leaves (sixteen pages) of which the book is generally composed. These are placed just below the last letters of the printed page, close under them. Now the earliest known book with a date in which signatures elsewhere occur in this developed form is an Expositio Decalogi, by Johannes Nider, printed at Cologne by Koelhoff in 1472, the next being a Cologne book by F. de Platea in 1474. The argument is that it is extremely unlikely that an isolated printer in a provincial town in England should make such a discovery and advance, and that the next similar book should be a German one four years later[[9]].

What may be called the common ground of the discussion on this point is well explained in Blades’s Books in Chains (Lond. 1892), pp. 85–122, in a paper on Signatures. He shows that the idea of signatures in manuscripts is as old as books themselves, but that in manuscripts the marks, being in writing and intended for the binder’s eye alone, were naturally, as a rule, at the foot or corner of the page, and often cut off in the process of binding. When printing came in, the obvious difficulty was to print marks so far from the rest of the printed page as to be cut off in binding. This difficulty was met in two ways: either the signatures were written in at the extreme foot (from 1462?), or the signatures were stamped on by hand with single types (from 1473?). Some printers, however, did manage by care to print signatures far from the text (1474 on?). Ultimately in a single case in 1472 and with increasing frequency from 1474 printers found that the essential ugliness of printed signatures close to the page was counterbalanced by the utility and convenience of the change, and our modern system was begun.

Now, it must be constantly remembered that the entire weight of disproof lies with those who dispute the printed date. This is why it is simply amusing to read Blades’s sage words on the subject of this 1472 book with normal printed signatures. He is pledged to renounce the Oxford date, but he finds it awkward that there is an isolated book of 1472 in precisely the same category—with the same want of precedent, the same absence of imitators, the same forlorn appearance. Observe how he deals with it (p. [116] of the book above cited):—“This is a puzzling book, for it is at least two years earlier than any other book so signed. In this city, too. [i. e. Lübeck[[10]]] many works were issued with MS. signatures with a later date than this. It is dangerous to assert that a book is wrongly dated because you cannot make it fit into a bibliographical theory; but I feel inclined, from the general aspect of the book, to date it as 1482, rather than 1472.” And yet a very high authority on typography assures me that the book is undoubtedly of 1472! What then prevents the tentative and isolated experiment of Cologne from having a similar tentative and isolated forerunner, even at Oxford? We may remember too that in the infancy of printing it was common to detect errors as the book went through the press, and often the printer himself corrected an error with his pen, as in the colophon of the Aegidius (see p. [1]). Or a reader would do the same. But it is believed that in no copy of the Jerome is there any attempt to correct or even throw suspicion on the date. There is the date, plain and detailed, and it is allowable to wait for scientific proof before it is abandoned. A priori considerations have force, but they are liable to sudden overthrow.

Clearly the consideration of signatures alone cannot avail to disprove the date of the Jerome. But much more remains.

2. Signs of progress.

It is said that, if we consider the interval between 1468 and 1479, we shall reasonably expect definite signs of progress. On the contrary, the first three Oxford books are printed with the same type, with similar signatures, with the same sized page and the same number of lines in a column. “In fact,” says Blades in the Antiquary, vol. iii, no. 13, Jan. 1881, in an article on The First Printing Press at Oxford, “if a leaf of one was extracted and inserted in another it would, typographically, excite no remark.” Natura nihil facit per saltum, and we are accustomed to apply the idea of evolution and development to every art and trade. It is asserted also that there is no other case of the cessation of a press for over ten years. But cessation of printing for such a time is not unknown. No book was produced at Bamberg between 1462 and 1480, or at Caen between 1480 and 1500, or at Brussels between 1484 and 1500, or at Haarlem for some years after 1486, or at Saragossa after 1475 till 1485? Moreover the only early printing known at Tavistock is two books in 1525 and 1534. The same type and identical woodcuts are found in the two, with an interval of nine years. And where there is cessation, it is obvious that we may be content with fewer signs of advance when work is resumed at the same press with the same type, than if the activity had been continuous, or if the instruments were changed.

But this question of progress is a plain issue. Are there no signs of advance in the two later books compared with the earlier one?

The first book often has an unevenness at the right-hand edge of a column (in 28 pages out of 84). In the other two it is always perfectly even[[11]]. Again, the Jerome starts printing on sign. a 1, whereas the other two start with a blank leaf, the printing beginning on a 2. Again, in the Jerome there is a peculiar misuse of the capitals H and Q (see p. [241]), not found in the following books. And lastly, to omit smaller matters, there is the decided and important fact that whereas in the Jerome each page was printed separately, in the Aegidius and Aretinus two pages were printed at a time.

3. The Type.

Of the palmary arguments against the date, one still remains. The first Oxford type presents a remarkable similarity to that used by Gerard ten Raem de Bercka (see p. [242]), and his only dated book at present known is of 1478. There is certainly a real connexion between the two founts, but we know so extremely little of this printer that it is at present unsafe to base any conclusion on his work. The typographical genealogy of the early printers of the Netherlands and Germany has not yet been fully drawn out, and of the 1478 Modus Confitendi (Hain 11455), which is here in question, only two copies with the date are known, one in the John Rylands (Spencer) library at Manchester and one on the continent. On this point we shall doubtless know more in time, but at present we are bound to suspend our judgment.

4. Mistakes of date common.

There are two subsidiary considerations left. One is that mistakes of date in colophons are not uncommon. An edition of Aeneas Sylvius’s Epistolae (Cologne, printed by Koelhoff) is dated MCCCCLXVIII, which is stated to be an error for 1478, and an Opusculum de componendis versibus by Mataratius, printed at Venice, is also believed to be erroneously dated 1468 for 1478. Caxton’s edition of Gower’s Confessio Amantis is dated 1493 instead of 1483. I have noticed the following additional errors affecting dates before 1501:—720 for 1720, 1061 for 1601, 1099 for 1499, 1334 for 1734, 1400 for 1490 or 1500, 1444 for 1494, 1461 for 1471, 1461 for 1641, 1462 for 1472, 1472 for 1482.

There is no doubt therefore that a mistake of date in an early book has many parallels, and so far the improbability of it happening in other books is diminished. At the same time one would expect the first printers in a place of learning to be careful enough, even if an initial blunder of this magnitude were committed, to correct it in some copies before issue. It is of course conceivable that the date was deliberately falsified, to avoid expected unpleasant consequences of being found flagrante delicto, but this hypothesis may be left to be dealt with when some one maintains it.

5. Books bound with the Jerome.

There remains a consideration of some weight. Until this century it was common to bind together several books (not merely pamphlets) in one volume. What books have been found in the same binding with the “1468” volume? Four copies of the Jerome are, or are known to have been, bound with several other treatises (see p. [252]). One is bound with (and before) the Aretinus of 1479, and it is interesting that though a few leaves of modern paper now separate them there is an offset of the first page of the Aretinus on the last page of the Jerome, showing that the Aretinus was bound with the Jerome before the former was entirely dry. No conclusion however about the date of the Jerome can be drawn from this and whatever presumption of synchronism might be raised is removed by the fact that the well defined stains at the end of the Jerome and beginning of the Aretinus do not run from the one to the other. A second copy was bound with seven others, only two of which are dated, 1478 and (the Oxford Aegidius) 1479: one of the undated is about 1485 (Perottus). A third copy was bound with four preceding treatises, of which the only dated one was the first, the Oxford Aegidius of 1479. A fourth has five pieces with it, the first two of which are of about 1480, the Jerome is third, the fourth is of 1485, the fifth is undated, and the last is of 1486 or 1487.

Clearly we are on very unsafe ground when we base any conclusion on these companion treatises, and our hesitation is not lessened when we notice that the only copy of the Vulgaria Terentii (Oxf., not later than 1483) which is bound with other treatises, occurs after books dated 1488 and 1486, the rest being without a date.

6. First printing in Europe.

The following list of places and dates will show how far it is likely, if we turn from facts to probabilities, that Oxford should have started printing in 1468. Only the first two towns of each country are given, with the exception of England: and the claim of Oxford is purposely ignored.

1. Germany (Mainz, not after 1454: Strassburg, before 1460: Cologne began not later than 1466).

2. Italy (Subiaco, 1465: Rome, 1467).

3. Switzerland (Basel, not after 1468: Beromünster, 1470).

4. France (Paris, 1470: Lyon, not after 1473).

5. Netherlands (Utrecht, about 1471–3: Alost, 1473).

6. Austro-Hungary (Buda-Pesth, 1473: Trient, 1475).

7. Spain (Valencia, 1474: Saragossa, 1475).

8. England (Westminster, 1477: Oxford, 1478: St. Alban’s, 1480 [1479?]: London, 1480).

9. Denmark (Odensee, 1482: Schleswig, 1486).

10. Sweden (Stockholm, 1483: Wadsten, 1495).

11. Portugal (Lisbon, 1489: Leiria, 1492).

12. Montenegro (Cettinje, 1494).

It is hoped that the above summary statement of the arguments for and against the date of the Jerome will serve to make the present position of the question clear. What general conclusion can be arrived at before further facts are discovered? Caxton, who began to print in England in 1477, nowhere claims to have introduced printing into England. Is it still conceivable that Oxford preceded Westminster by nine years? The answer is that it is still conceivable, but not probable. The ground has been slowly and surely giving way beneath the defenders of the Oxford date, in proportion to the advance of our knowledge of early printing, and all that can be said is that it has not yet entirely slipped away. All the new contributions to the argument and all the chief bibliographers are against it, while no fresh defending forces are in sight. But it is still allowable to assert that the destructive arguments, even if we admit their cumulative cogency, do not at the present time amount to proof.

In the venerable building at the north-east corner of St. Mary’s Church at Oxford—the old House of Congregation, which, though once the cradle of the University,

Nunc situs informis premit et deserta vetustas—

there is still a single tenant, feebly holding his ground and refusing to be evicted. He wears the form of King Alfred and bears a legend beneath, telling us boldly that he founded the University[[12]]. The clamour of disputation never reaches that silent room, the changes of centuries have disregarded it, and it remains the one place where a belief which cast a lustre of royalty over early Oxford, and to this day gives primacy to one of the oldest colleges, is still maintained without contradiction. The figure neither utters nor listens to argument: it asserts and chooses to assert. But the spirit of the age is at the door: St. Mary’s is swathed in scaffolding: the sounds of trowel and saw penetrate through the dim glass and the cobwebs and all things become new. It is probable that the opening years of the twentieth century will see the age-worn bust of Alfred and the copy of the Oxford Jerome in the University archives consigned to a common flame as Impostors in an age of light.

Copies known.

1. British Museum. Perfect. Given by the Earl of Oxford on 10 Mar. 1729
30 to James West, at whose sale in 1773 it probably passed to M. C. Tutet: then in the King’s Library, which passed in 1829 to the British Museum, where it bore the mark 8. D. 5; now 167. b. 26.

2. Bodleian. Wanting e 10, a blank leaf. One page (b 7r) is printed askew, in this copy only. Owned in 1582 by William Wright: then Bp. Juxon’s, who gave it on 31 July 1657 to Bp. Barlow, among whose books it passed to the Bodleian in 1693: where it has been successively marked A. 19. 6 Linc., Auct. Q. 1. 5. 18, Auct. Q. 1. 6. 12 and Auct. R. supra 13.

3. All Souls College, Oxford. Wanting a 4, a 5. Given by Benj. Buckler in 1756: bound in the 18th cent. with the Aretinus (see p. [253]). Marked NN. 10. 1, now LL. 10. 17.

4. Oriel College, Oxford. Perfect. Originally this was bound 4th in a volume containing Augustinus de dignitate sacerdotum: Meditationes Bernardi: Exempla Scripturae, Paris, 1478: the Jerome: Comm. Petri de Osoma in symbolum Quicunque vult, Paris: the Aegidius, Oxf. 1479: Ars bene moriendi: and Hugonis Speculum ecclesiae. Owned by Edmund Lyster in the 16th cent. The present binding is of the 18th century: but there are old manuscript signatures throughout the volume.

5. Oxford University Archives. Perfect. Owned by John Rhodes in 1664: given by Moses Pit, a London bookseller, 31 Jan. 1679
80. Bound with the Casus breves of Johannes Andreas (n. d.).

6. Cambridge University Library. Wanting e 10, a blank leaf. This copy has a painting of St. Jerome, a coloured capital and border, &c., and a coat of arms. It bears a George I bookplate dated 1713. Marked C. 5. 1, and now AB. 5. 18.

7. John Rylands Library, Manchester. Perfect. Bought for the Spencer Library for £150: bound by C. Lewis: marked 17320, or E. 237: transferred to Manchester with the whole Spencer Library.

8. The Huth Library.

9. The Earl of Pembroke’s Library.

10. Sir Henry Dryden’s Library. Wanting e 10, a blank leaf. In original binding, part of a volume containing Joh. Sulp. Verulanus de Octo partibus orationis: Aug. Senensis de loquendi regulis: the Jerome: Alb. de Ferrariis de horis canonicis, 1485: Kamintus on the pestilence: and two leaves of a Prognostication of 1486 or 1487.

11. Paris National Library. Bought by Lord Blandford in Feb. 1812 for £91: in the White Knights sale sold for £28.

12. A copy recently sold to an American. Perfect. It was originally in an Oxford contemporary binding with the Oxford Aegidius, 1479: Mich. de Hungaria’s Tredecim Sermones: “Oxoniensis cuiusdam exercitationes”: Adelard of Bath’s Quaestt. naturales: the Jerome was last. Owned by A. Hilton in the 15th cent.

In 1862 a copy in F. S. Ellis’s catalogue (p. 14, no. 957) was priced £110.

Fragments:—Leaves a 2, a 7, a 8, b 4, c 1, c 3, e 3, e 6–8 are in the Bodleian.

2. Aretinus (1479, see p. 1).

The reasons for placing this book second are given above at pp. [241]–2: if they are regarded as sufficient, we must take “1479” in the Aegidius as what we should call 1480, which is in agreement with the ordinary usage of the time and which gains a slight probability, in that the printing would have been finished on a Sunday, if the year were taken as 1478
9. All copies are poorly printed. It was quite fitting that the first book printed at Oxford should be theological and the second the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle.

Copies known.

1. British Museum. Wanting a 1, a blank leaf. In this copy alone there is a director for the large O of Omnis on b 1r. Owned by Will. Davis in 1792: then in the Grenville Library: marked “7. p. 115. 1,” 8. D. 5, 163. B. 2, G. 7930, and now C. 2. a. 7. Bound with it is a manuscript translation into Latin of Aristotle’s Œconomica and Politics, dedicated to Humphrey Duke of Gloucester.

2. Bodleian. Perfect. In this copy at o 2r and o 2v is a ć printed in the margin, apparently meaning “cancel,” since the recto is printed askew. Manuscript notes show that the book, which is in contemporary binding, was at first in the hands of an Oxford student (?) who received pittance from the Prior of Oseney. Then “Codex Michaelis Canni.” Owned by John Selden, among whose books it came to the Library in 1659. Marked 8o A. 17 Art. Seld., Auct. Q. 1. 5. 17, Auct. R. supr. 8, and now S. Selden e. 2.

3. All Souls College, Oxford. Perfect. Bound with the Jerome (see p. [252]).

4. Norwich Cathedral Library.

5. John Rylands Library, Manchester. Imperfect, wanting a 1, a blank leaf. Made up out of two copies, the Alchorne and the Freeling. Bound by C. Lewis: marked 15969 or G. 237: transferred as the Jerome.

6. The Earl of Pembroke’s Library.

7. Chetham Library at Manchester. Wants a 1 and two leaves in sign. k.

8. Lord Ashburnham.

Anthony Askew possessed a copy (Sale catal. 1775, no. 998, sold for £5 5s. to Dent), and an imperfect one occurred in the Bright sale in 1845 (no. 180), and fetched £5 15s.

Fragments:—The Bodleian possesses fragments comprising l 3, l 6–8, v 3, v 6, v 7, v 8: Queen’s College, Oxford, possesses m 8, with some variations of reading: and i 4 was in 1888 in the possession of F. J. H. Jenkinson, Esq., at Cambridge.

3. Aegidius (1479
80?, see p. [1]).

In this work the colophon is printed in red, the only instance of colour printing in the early Oxford press. The book is for some reason rarer than the two which precede. It is noticeable that in every known copy the bad grammar of the printed colophon was corrected in red ink before it left the office.

Copies known.

1. Bodleian. Perfect. Owned by Robert Burton, the author of the Anatomy of Melancholy, in 1601. Originally bound first in a volume also containing De viginti preceptis elegantiarum, Bois-le-duc, 1487: Perotti grammatica: Bonaventurae Soliloquium. Marked 4o A. 28 Th., then Auct. Q. 1. 5. 16, then separately bound as Auct. R. supra 4.

2. Oriel College Library. Perfect. See the Jerome, no. 4.

3. John Rylands Library, Manchester. Wanting a 1 and c 8, blank leaves and a 8. Purchased by Lord Spencer: once part of the volume containing the Jerome no. 12.

A copy was in the Harleian Library (Catal. vol. 3, no. 6674).

4. Cicero, Pro Milone (1480?, see p. [2]).

This is a puzzling book. The type so closely resembles Oxford type that every bibliographer has accepted it provisionally as identical. Yet it exhibits spaced type, it uses / for a comma (both points unique in Oxford printing), and the sections are made up in sixes. It is also by many years the first classic printed in England, the next being a Terence in 1497. The volume probably consisted of a—e in sixes, allowing a leaf blank at the beginning: perhaps section e was in eight. The first half of each section bears signatures. The book was clearly made up of half quarto sheets, three to each section. Mr. Blades was of opinion that the type was more worn than that of the Ales: and Mr. E. G. Duff thinks that the spacing and other peculiarities point to a later date than 1480.

Fragments known:—b 3–4, c 3–4 are in the Bodleian (Auct. R. supra 3), having been presented by Sir William H. Cope in 1872. They were fly leaves in a volume containing five treatises dated from 1491 to 1505, probably bound in Oxford for William Cope (d. 1513) who lived near Banbury. Also c 1–2, 5–6 are in Merton College Library, Oxford, among some loose printed fragments.

5. Latin Grammar (1481?, see p. [2]).

This is only known from two leaves in the British Museum, acquired in 1872 or late in 1871, which were found in the binding of a book, which in the sixteenth cent. belonged to Nicholas Browere. It is a Latin grammar in English, the examples of which connect its composition with Oxford (e. g. “I goo to grammer att Oxforde Incumbo grammatice Oxonij,” “Y go to Oxforde Eo Oxonium vel ad Oxonium.”) From letters in the Athenaeum, 4 and 11 Nov. 1871, and notes in the book, it appears that the author might be John Anwykyll (see p. [257]) and that it is probably not by Holt or Stanbridge. The chain lines run across the page: but it is at present impossible to say whether the sections were in sixes or eights. Marked C. 33. i. 10.

6. Ales (1481, see p. [2]).

The woodcut border which is found in some copies of the Ales and Latteburius is the earliest found in English printing, though Caxton uses woodcut engravings in the text (for the first time) in the same year. It consists of birds and flowers grouped on long winding stems, the four pieces which form the border measuring in all not less than 11¼ × 7¾ in. (no quite intact copy is known, the binder’s ruthless knife invariably removing a portion). A full-size reproduction of it is given in E. G. Duff’s Facsimiles of English types (Lond. 1895).

Copies known.

1. British Museum. Without border. Wanting a 4, a 5. Re-bound lately, but with the original sides. Owned by William Wodebrigge, sub-prior of Butleigh, co. Suffolk: then by John Warner: then by Cranmer: then by lord Lumley. In the Old Royal Library: once 520. 9. 12, now C. 38. g. 1.

2. Bodleian. Without border. Perfect: in original Oxford binding, plain sides. Owned by Roger Balkwell in the 15th cent. Marked A. 5. 4 Art., then C. 7. 15 Art., now Auct. R. supra 10.

3. Oxford—Balliol.

4. Oxford—Brasenose. Without border. On vellum. Imperfect, wanting 13 leaves. In contemporary Oxford binding, with stamped sides. Owned by—Claxton and Patrick Grante.

5, 6. Oxford—Magdalen. Two copies, one imperfect, both with border. In J. E. T. Rogers’s History of Prices is a note that Magdalen purchased a copy of this book in 1481 for 33s. 4d.

7. Oxford—New College.

8. Oxford—St. John’s (not in Oriel, as has been stated).

9. Oxford—Trinity.

10. Oxford—Worcester. Without border. Imperfect, wanting a i (blank), k 2, y 3. Given to Gloucester Hall by Clement Barksdale.

11. Cambridge University Library. With border in three places, a 2, h 1, z 1. Perfect. Marked P*. 9. 15.

12. Do. Without border. Wanting a 1 (blank). Marked AB. 10. 9: with George I’s bookplate.

13. John Rylands Library, Manchester. With border in three places, a 2, h 1 and z 1. Wanting three leaves, a 1, g 6, y 8, all blank. Marked D. 237, E. 237, 19944, in the Spencer Library.

14. Durham Cathedral Library. Without border.

15. Dulwich College Library: bound with Lettou’s edition of Ant. Andreae, 1480.

16. Lincoln Cathedral Library.

Fragments:—In the Bodleian r 6 and parts of C 1, E 6: in Merton College, Oxford, two leaves (one is i 7): in Corpus Christi College, Oxford, part of one leaf: in the Cambridge University Library, parts of E 1 and other fragments: in the British Museum (MS. Harl. 5929, no. 36: last leaf with colophon and date): at Trinity College, Cambridge.

7. Latteburius (1482, see p. [2]).

Some copies of this work also bear the engraved border noticed on p. [254]. Some copies have a distinct variation on sign. “kk” (= K) 7v, thus

liū super capitulum s’m trenorū Ihe, or

liū suꝑ capitulū secūdū trenorū Ihe.

Clearly the type was altered because s’m is a fair contraction when meaning “according to,” but not properly used when meaning “second.” See plate III.

Copies known.

1. British Museum. With border. Perfect. In the original stamped leather binding. Owned by Simon Foderby in the 15th century: by Christopher Viscount Castlecomer, and W. F. (?) Hunter, 1824. Marked 1215. k. 1, 1215. k. 6, 45. b. 30. 135, now C. 37. h. 10.

2. Bodleian. With border. Perfect. Owned by John Cuthbertson, priest, and Robert Bonwick. Marked L. 1. 3 Th., L. 7. 2 Th., Auct. Q. 1. 2. 8, now Auct. R. supra 11.

3. Oxford—All Souls. Without border. On vellum. Perfect, except that part of O 6 (blank) is gone. Given by Richard Gavent formerly Fellow of the College. The binding is contemporary Oxford stamped leather. This copy is remarkable from the fact that four names, apparently of parchment-sellers, occur as signing certain leaves: on 54 leaves (representing 108) F. H.: on 31, Hawkyns or Haukins: on 8, Alison: on 3, J. Alexander (Alysaunder): probably some other signings are cut off. A comparison of two sets of similar markings in other books almost establishes the fact that these names do not represent revisers of the printing, but dimply the owners of the parchment. Sometimes “8 ff,” and once “8 ff alison,” occur, showing that the pieces were sold in bundles of eight (?). Marked P. [2]. 18, then QQ. 8. 11.

4. Oxford—Corpus Christi College. With border. Wanting almost all of a 1, L 8, O 6 blank leaves. In contemporary binding. Marked X. P. iv. 4, then Δ. 18. 3.

5. Oxford—New College.

6, 7. Cambridge University Library. Both with border. One perfect (E. 4. 1), in contemporary binding of stamped leather. Given by Albanus Butler to Richard Butler, rector of Aston-le-Walls (co. Northants) 23 June 1603. The other, AB. 7. 27, only wants a 1 (blank leaf); with a George I bookplate.

8. Cambridge—Jesus College. With border.

9. Cambridge—Trinity College. Perfect (?). Marked vid. 8. 9 (described in Sinker’s Catalogue, 1876).

10. John Rylands Library at Manchester. With border. Wanting only a 1 (blank leaf). Owned by “Henri Joliff.” Marked 16741 or E. 237.

11. Lambeth Library.

12. Westminster Chapter Library. On vellum.

13. Stonyhurst Library. Wanting only three blank leaves.

14. T. Etherington Cooke, Esq., residing in Glasgow. Perfect. With border. In original binding.

15. Brussels Library.

Copies occurred in the Sams sale (185-, £17 5s., one leaf in manuscript): Bateman sale (1893: lot 1176): Payne and Foss (1848: art. 3120, £8 8s.): Gardiner sale (£9 12s.): Towneley sale (1883, with border, wanting O 6, and also L 1 and L 8, H 3 and H 6 occurring in their stead: this copy was in Quaritch’s Rough List. 99, no. 572, Sept. 1889, £32 10s.): B. H. Bright sale 1845, lot 3364 (£7 7s., with another book).

Fragments known:—Lord Robartes (on vellum, part of one leaf, O 3); Trinity College, Cambridge; Queen’s College, Oxford (on vellum; l 3, l 5, B 4, B 5, kk 5, kk 6); King’s College, Cambridge; Emmanuel College, Cambridge (on vellum, two half leaves, in q. 4. 62); Wadham College, Oxford (f 2, f 3, f 6, f 7); British Museum (one leaf, i 8, in 618. l. 18, and one leaf on vellum in Harl. MS. 5977. fol. 44); S. Sandars, Esq. (one leaf); New College, Oxford (four leaves, H 2, H 7, g 3, p 4: and on vellum four leaves, D 2–3, &c.); Bodleian (I 3, I 5, kk 2, kk 7, M 2, b 2–5; C 7–8 on vellum); Brasenose College, Oxford (on vellum, I 6); Corpus Christi College, Oxford (four leaves: and two leaves on vellum).

8. Anwykyll (1483?, see p. [3]).

Four of the chief English grammarians of the 16th century were connected with Magdalen College Grammar School at Oxford. The first master was John Anwykyll (1481?-87); the first usher and second master was John Stanbridge (1481?-88, 1488–94, d. 1510); John Holte, the author of the Lac Puerorum, was master; and Robert Whittington was Stanbridge’s pupil at the school. Dean Colet, William Lily and Cardinal Wolsey were also members of Magdalen (see Bloxam’s Register of Magdalen College, iii., ad init.). Of the Latin Grammar in Latin which is now before us and has been assigned with probability by Bradshaw to Anwykyll, no complete copy is known, but it was reprinted at Deventer in 1489. The Vulgaria Terentii occurs also separately, and consists of sentences from Terence with English translation.

There appear to be two different editions of this Grammar (not Vulgaria), for it can be shown that the Cambridge fragments are not of the same edition as the Bodleian book. Not only, for instance, are the contents of sign. h 3 in each entirely different, but the signatures themselves are in different type, and in the Corpus (Cambridge) fragment the signature is n 3, and yet it belongs to the Compendium and not the Vulgaria. The height of the printed page also varies considerably, and the width of the Vulgaria pages is less than that of the Grammar. The subject needs further investigation.

Parts known.

1. London—British Museum, Vulgaria Terentii only, with written date at end 5 Jan. 1500/1. Marked C. 33. i. 3.

2. Oxford—Bodleian. A fragment containing signn. fg8hk6lm8 and (Vulgaria) n-q8. Sign. i probably contained the Tertia pars grammaticae. With the Condover Hall (Cholmondeley) bookplate: bought by the Bodleian from Quaritch in 1892: in whose Rough List, no. 124, May 1892, it is priced £100. Now marked Inc. e. E 2 1483
1.

3. Oxford—Bodleian. The Vulgaria only, bound first in a volume containing also P. P. Vergerii de ingenuis moribus liber (Louvain, Joh. de Westphalia, n. d.), and Adelardi Quaestiones (n. pl. or d.). The following interesting inscription is in it:—“1483. Frater Johannes grene emit hunc librum Oxoñ de elemosinis amicorum suorum.” In plain 15th cent. binding. Owned also by Henry Strathyn at Bedford, John Uncle, Robert Hunter (all 16th cent.). Bought by the Bodleian at the T. Thomson sale Jan. 1866 (lot 1068) for £36. Marked Auct. R. supra 2.

4. Cambridge—University Library. The Vulgaria only. Bound originally in a volume containing Perotti Erudimenta Grammatices (Par. 1488): Opusculum quintu-pertitum grammaticale (Gouda, 1486); Ars Epistolandi Jac. P(ublicii) (n. pl. or d.); the Vulgaria; Matheoli Perusini tractatus de memoria (n. pl. or d.). Marked AB. 5. 16. 4.

5. John Rylands Library, Manchester. The Vulgaria only.

Small Fragments known:—Cambridge University Library (two leaves, h 3, and [without sign.] the beginning of the 3rd part): Trinity College Library, Cambridge (one leaf, d 1, of the same edition as the University Library fragments). Photographs of these fragments are in the Bodleian. The Rev. W. D. Macray states in his Annals of the Bodleian (2nd ed., 1890, p. 159, note) that Bradshaw found two leaves at Corpus and two at St. John’s (both Cambridge), but these really belong to the Alexander (p. 260). Four leaves are in the library of Lord Dillon at Ditchley, Oxfordshire, discovered by Mr. Macray in 1867.

9. Hampole (1483?, see p. [3]).

This work by Richard Rolle of Hampole (d. 1349) was also printed at Paris in 1510 and at Cologne in 1536. Noticed in J. Ph. Berjeau’s Bibliophile, no. 24 (Dec. 1863), p. 146.

Copies known.

1. Cambridge University Library. Wants a 1 and l 4 (both blank: AB. 4. 31, with a George I bookplate).

2. Cambridge University Library. Wants l 4 (H* 9. 51. 5).

3. John Rylands Library, Manchester, purchased in 1893 from the Cambridge University Library. Wants almost all a 1 (F* 5. 26. 3, when at Cambridge).

Fragments:—Some leaves from the Babington sale (1889) are in the Library of St. John’s College, Cambridge.

10. Logic (1483?, see p. [3]).

There is a Registrum cartarum at the end of this book, on sign. D d 8r. Diagrams are on A 4r, A 5v, B 6v, cf. C c 2r.

Copies known.

1. New College, Oxford. Wanting nearly all a 1 (blank leaf). Owned by John Utting. Marked Auct. V. 2. 18.

2. Merton College, Oxford. Wanting a 1 (blank), B 3, B 4. Marked D. 6. 13 Art., D. 8. 17 Art., then 19. E. 18.

Fragments:—Bodleian (one leaf, Q 2: marked Auct. R. supra 16): Cambridge University Library: Trinity College, Cambridge (one leaf, 26 half leaves): St. John’s College, Cambridge (O 1, O 2, O 5, O 6): Lambeth Library (four leaves).

11. Lyndewoode (1483?, see p. [3]).

This contains a large wood engraving (on sign. a 1v) of Jacobus de Voragine writing the Golden Legend, seated at his desk beneath a canopy; on each side are two trees, the foliage of which, as in the Festial, is represented by nearly horizontal lines in rude style. Size 4⅜ × 7⅜ in., to outer bounding lines. See plate IV.

Copies known.

1. British Museum. Wanting aa 1 and either S 10 or (the second) aa 1 (both blank). Marked 497. i. 1, then C. 37. l. 2. In this copy f 1, f 2, f 7, f 8, all g, h and i, k 1, k 2 have been re-set, compared with the other two, which are probably the earlier issue. As a test, in this copy the catchword on sign. f 1r is under quamuis, but in nos. 2 and 3 under glosa, as is usual.

2. British Museum. Wanting S 10 (blank); and a duplicate of f 3, f 6 is placed after t 3. Owned by Tho. Chandler, dean of Hereford March 1481
2 to 1490, then by James Scudamour, who gave it to Richard Tomson in 1595. Marked 711. i. 15, and 41. 11. 6. 164: now C. 37. l. 7. The sides of the binding are old stamped leather.

3. British Museum. Wanting a 1, R 1, R 8, cc 3, cc 6, and all dd. Owned by Nicholas Peir(ce?), John Harrison (?), and William Graves who gave it to the Museum. Marked 497. i. 2.

4. Oxford, Bodleian. Perfect. In original binding of stamped leather, re-backed. Marked L. 4. 8 Jur., then Auct. Q. 1. 1. 4, then Auct. R. supra 12, now Inc. b. E 2. 1485
1.

5. Oxford, All Souls. Perfect. Marked A. 1. 29, C. 3. 12, D. 11. 12, now I. 11. 10. Owned by Thomas Windsor in 1634, and bp. Nathaniel Crewe.

6. Oxford, New College. (“Auct. V. 12”.)

7. Oxford, Queen’s College.

8. Cambridge University Library. Wanting aa 1 (nearly all), y 4, y 5. With a George I bookplate, 1715. Marked B. 1. 5, now AB 1. 19.

9. —— 2nd copy. Wanting A 2, S. 10, dd 1, dd 10. Marked L. 3. 38, now Q. 2. 14.

10. Cambridge, Clare College.

11. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College.

12. Cambridge, King’s College.

13. Cambridge, St. John’s College. On vellum.

14. John Rylands Library, Manchester: bought from the late Rev. J. E. Millard by Lord Spencer. Wanting a 1, S 10, aa 1, dd 10. This had been in the Savile sale (1862), lot 497.

15. Edinburgh, Advocates’ Library.

16. Durham Cathedral Library.

17. Glasgow, Free Church College Library.

18. E. Gordon Duff, Esq.: bought at a London sale for £12 15s.: wanting a 1, S 10, aa 1.

19. Lord Crawford.

20. National Library at Paris. On vellum.

A copy occurred in the Bateman sale (1893), lot 1190.

Fragments known:—Bodleian (part of D 2: marked Auct R. supra 17: now Inc. c. E 7. 1); Jesus College, Oxford (part of a leaf of index): Mr. E. G. Duff possesses a Valerius Maximus of 1519, in a Cambridge binding (about 1520), the boards of which are entirely made up of the Oxford Lyndewoode; from the Hailstone Library.

☞ The following book was discovered since sheet B was printed off.

12. Augustine (1483?).

Augustine, St. [Sign. a 2r:—] Excitatio fidelis anime ad ele⸗|mosinam faciendam A beato Au⸗|gustino conscripta.

[Oxford, about 1483]: (eight) sm. 4o: pp. [16], sign. a8: sign. a 3r beg. Non enim. Contents:—sign. a 2-a 8r, the sermon.

This piece of Oxford printing was discovered in the spring of 1891 in the British Museum. It was originally bound with Gerson’s De modo vivendi (Joh. de Westphalia, n. d.), the Cordiale de quattuor novissimis (Delft, 1482), Albertanus de arte loquendi, 1484, Adelardi Quæstiones naturales, and the Historia septem sapientum. Marked 702. d. 34, now C. 38. f. 37: it had been part of lot 4912 in the Colbert sale. A facsimile is given in E. G. Duff’s Early printed books (Lond. 1893).

13. Phalaris (1485, see p. [4]).

The computation of the date by Olympiads is very uncommon, in early printed books: it is however the most ancient classical method. Each Olympiad is a period of four years, and the first is computed to have commenced in July, B. C. 776: so that July A. D. 1 corresponded with the beginning of Olympiad 195. The computation ceased for practical purposes in A. D. 395, and the present revival is of an artificial kind, in which the expression “every fifth year,” which by a Greek could be applied to an Olympiad (Πενταετηρίς), was taken in its ordinary sense and used for computation. Thus “in the 297th Olympiad from the birth of Christ” was in the present book taken to represent (297 × 5 =) A. D. 1485. A similar use is found in the 1472 (Venice) edition of the Epigrams of Ausonius[[13]]. But the 1494 (Parma) edition of the Declamations of Quintilian contains a futile attempt to use the ancient method, for it was printed “Olympiade quingentesima sexagesima octaua qui est annus a salute christiana M.cccc.xciiii quinto non. Iul.”, whereas it would properly have been 1493. And M. A. Giry (Manuel de Diplomatique, 1894, p. 96) records an unintelligible attempt to use this computation in a deed of 1102.

Copies known.

1. Oxford, Corpus Christi College. Perfect. Owned by John Lacy, and Herbert Randolph (1724). Marked Χ P. [3]. 12, then Δ. 1. 14.

2. Oxford, Wadham College.

3. John Rylands Library, Manchester. Perfect. Marked in the Spencer Library S. 5. 3, and 15835 (G. 237).

Fragments:—Bodleian (parts of i 4, i 6, now Auct. R. supra 9): Corpus Christi College, Oxford (parts of l 2 and l 7): St. John’s College Library, Oxford (one leaf): Trin. Coll. Camb. (one leaf of sign. d): Westminster Abbey Library (four leaves of sign. k).

14. Alexander (1485?, see p. [4]).

There are editions of the Textus Alexandri by Pynson in 1505, 1513, 1516 and by Wynkin de Worde, 1503.

Fragments known:—St. John’s College, Cambridge (c 2 and c 3 [?]): Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (two leaves, n 3 and one unsigned; probably part of the Alexander).

15. Festiall (1486
7, see p. [4]).

Printed in “1486,” “on the day aftir Seint Edward the kyng”: which would seem to be March 19, 1486
7. This book is distinguished by the occurrence of many woodcut engravings, and by the use of a woodcut capital G (52 times). This latter is the only woodcut letter used in the early Oxford Press (see Bradshaw in the Communications of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, iii. 136). In the same paper (p. [138]) Bradshaw suggests that the eleven large cuts were perhaps intended for an edition of the Golden Legend, and that the five smaller ones belong to a lost Oxford Primer on Horae. The text is nearer to that of Caxton’s second issue (1491) than of his first (1483). The two sets of woodcuts are as follows:—

Larger kind (general size, about 4½ × 4½–5½ in.).
1.( ) 1r.Woodcut of the Crucifixion, laid sideways.
2.( ) iv.Woodcut of St. Christopher bearing Christ, beneath a canopy.
3.h 5v.Bishop under canopy, with two trees (facsimile in Dibdin’s Ædes Althorpianæ).
4.i 5v.Martyrdom of St. Thomas.
5.k 7r.Stoning of St. Stephen (facsimile in Dibdin).
6.l 2r.St. John the Evangelist (?) with cup and palm-branch, between two figures.
7.l 6r.Murder of the Innocents.
8.l 8v.Murder of Thomas a Becket.
9.m 5v.The Circumcision.
10.n 6r.The Conversion of St. Paul.
11.o 7v.The Annunciation.
Smaller kind (general size, about 2½ × 1½ in.).
12.c 4v.Crucifixion.
d 8v.Space for woodcut.
e 2v.  Do. ?
13.e 3r.Pentecost.
e 5r.  Do., the same woodcut.
14.f 2v.The Trinity.
15.h 1r.St. Andrew with his cross, with a book and trees.
16.h 1r.St. Andrew with his cross.

The prints are rude in execution, the foliage of trees being generally indicated simply by horizontal lines (as in a French Ortus Sanitatis of about 1485). The shoes, sword-scabbards, and the like are often entirely black, showing that the cuts were intended to be coloured by hand. They appear to be entirely unknown elsewhere. See plate V.

Copies known.

1. Bodleian. Imperfect. Wanting all ( ), c 3, c 4, g 4, k 4, k 5, o 4, o 5, r 5, s 3, s 4, s 5, s 6, z 1, z 3, z 4. Marked Auct. R. supra 5. The variations of signn. h and i show that this is a later issue than no. 2. Owned by William Little.

2. Bodleian. Imperfect. Wanting all ( ), a-f, g 1, g 2, h 1, i 6, k 1–3, k 6–8, l 3, l 6, l 8, o 3, p 6, r 4–6, t 1, t 6, x 1, x 2, x 7, x 8, y, z: but y 2, y 5 are inserted from Hearne’s fragments. This was William Herbert’s copy: no. 730 in the Utterson sale 1852, where it was bought by the Bodleian for £6 10s.: marked Auct. R. supra 7.

3. John Rylands Library, Manchester. Wanting a 1, a 2 (supplied in manuscript), z 4. Owned by Ratcliffe (sale, no. 1430, £3 2s.), then Alchorne, then Johnes. No. 15409 (E. 237) in the Spencer Library. Dibdin’s collation is very faulty. Signn. h, i are of the later kind.

4. Lambeth Library. Wants z 4 (blank). The variations in signn. h, i are of the later type. Once archbp. Tenison’s copy. Marked once lxiii. 1. 19, now 38. 2. 23. f.

A copy occurred for sale in Rodd’s 1831 catalogue, priced £6 6s.

Fragments:—British Museum (one leaf, y 3, in MS. Harl. 5919, no. 139): Wadham College, Oxford (1½ leaves): Brasenose College, Oxford (several leaves): parts of two leaves (q 6 and another) were offered by A. Iredale, bookseller of Torquay (catal. 31, Oct. 1887, no. 1) for 21s.

The Printing Press at Oxford ceases its work suddenly in 1486
7, and there is no reason for this stop at present known. The printing at St. Alban’s ceased at about the same time. It has been suggested that Rood left Oxford for Cologne, where a Theodericus printed books in 1485 and 1486 in a type similar to that of the Ales and Latteburius. In this case Hunt may have continued for a short time alone, and then relinquished the work.

APPENDIX B.
The Early Sixteenth Century Press.

(Supplementary to, and corrective of, pp. [5]–7.)

From December 1517 to February “1519” (1519
20?) a printing press is found in work at Oxford in St. John’s Street near Merton College, connected in 1518 with the name of Johannes Scolar and in the last book with the name of Carolus Kyrfoth. Both of these appear to be foreigners, but nothing certain has yet been discovered about them or the causes of the establishment and cessation of the press[[14]]. In 1524 none of these names occurs among the inhabitants of Oxford paying taxes (Oxf. Hist. Soc., City Documents, ed. by J. E. T. Rogers, 1891, p. 5): nor are they otherwise known in Oxford as booksellers or stationers. Although Scolar uses the arms of the University (their earliest occurrence in print), yet the Registers of the University almost entirely ignore the fact that for the second time the greatest literary invention since speech and writing were known, was silently at work in its midst. Three of the books were however issued “Cum Privilegio.” It is peculiar that whereas theology claimed a fair proportion of the first press, it is entirely absent from the second; grammar, logic, arithmetic, natural science, and the Ethics of Aristotle being alone represented, except that one broadside consists of a Prognostication, which Dorne’s lists in 1520 show to have been a popular form of literature in Oxford at that time. All are in small quarto, and similar in the types used, namely an English and Brevier black-letter, with a Great Primer for titles. Not only at Oxford but also at Cambridge, York, Tavistock, and Abingdon, in all of which there was an early 16th cent. press, printing entirely ceases for nearly the central forty years of that century.

1. Burley on Aristotle (1517, see p. [5]).

Copies known.

Oxford—Bodleian.

Oxford—St. John’s College.

The titlepage is reproduced in plate VI. The Royal Arms on the penultimate page of this treatise, and also in the 1518 Burley’s Principia, are a wood engraving which belonged to Winkin de Worde, as I am informed by Mr. E. G. Duff.

2. Dedicus (1518, May, see p. [6]).

On the title is the woodcut mark of John Scolar engraved in Berjeau’s Printers’ Marks (Lond. 1866) no. 81, and his Bookworm (Lond. 1868), no. 32, p. 126: see also the Corrections and Additions to Chandler’s Catalogue of editions of Aristotle’s Ethics (Oxf. 1868), p. 7.

Copies known.

London—British Museum, bought at the Crawford sale, 1891, lot 932. The last leaf with colophon is also in MS. Harl. 5929, fol. 41.

Oxford—Corpus Christi College, wanting titlepage.

Oxford—Jesus College (two copies).

Cambridge—University Library: which has also a fragment containing the greater part of pp. [1]–12, [14]–17.

Edinburgh—University Library (wants 4 leaves, sign. I 3–6).

King’s Norton Parish Library.

A copy was in the Inglis sale, 1826.

3. De Luce (1518, June 5: see p. [6]).

Copies known.

Oxford—Bodleian.

Oxford—Jesus College.

Cambridge—University Library.

4. Burley’s Principia (1518, June 7: see p. [5]).

Copies known.

Oxford—Bodleian.

Oxford—Jesus College.

Cambridge—University Library, wanting D 4.

The titlepage is reproduced in plate VII. See note on the 1517 Burley, p. 263.

5. Whittington (1518, June 27: see p. [7], where in l. 3 protouatis is a misprint for prothouatis. The square brackets in the title may now be removed).

Copies known.

Oxford—Bodleian (imperfect).

Oxford—Jesus College.

Cambridge—University Library.

Cambridge—Pembroke College (six copies).

John Rylands Library.

Ham House.

6. Laet (1518?: see p. [6]).

The title is now known to be “Prenostica” simply. The parts known are (1) from the Cambridge copy, from the top a head line and 34 lines, from the bottom 33 lines of small type and 5 of larger type: (2) from the Oxford copy, 22 lines from the top, and 22–24 from the bottom. At present the intervening space, which must be small, is unknown. The type is 8¼ in. broad, and red ink is used.

Copies known.

Oxford—Corpus Christi College (28 fragments of the upper and lower parts).

Cambridge—University Library (two fragments).

7. Compotus (1519: see p. [7]).

Beneath the title is a woodcut, 5¾ × 4⅜ in., representing a master at his desk, with a birch in his left hand and a book in his right: above him and on each side are other volumes, and before him five students on a bench with their books. Two windows are in the background. On A 2r is a diagram of the open hand (5 × 3⅝ in.), for purposes of computation: and different diagrams of the hand or part of it are on A 2v, A 4r, A 4v.

Copy known.

Cambridge—University Library.

Details of the Early Sixteenth Century Press.

No.Book.Date.Printer named.Place named.
1Burley on Aristotle1517 Dec. 4Academia Oxonie
2Dedicus1518 May 15J. Scolar[[15]]Celeberrima Universitas Oxoniensis (St. John’s St.)
3De Luce1518 June 5J. Scolar[[15]]Celeberrima Universitas Oxoniensis (St. John’s St.)
4Burley’s Principia1518 June 7J. Scolar[[15]]Celeberrima Universitas Oxoniensis (St. John’s St.)
5Whittington1518 June 27J. ScolarOxonia
6Laet (1518?)Celeberrima Oxoniensis Academia
7Compotus“1519” Feb. 5C. KyrfothCeleberrima Universitas Oxoniensis (St. John’s St.)
No.Book.Pages.Lines in page.Large Capitals.Head Line.Woodcuts.
1Burley on Aristotle2055+⨀Oxf. & Royal Arms
2Dedicus152 (foliated)56++Oxf. & Royal Arms
3De Luce1655–6++Oxf. & Magi
4Burley’s Principia1657⨀+Oxf. & Royal Arms & Scholar
5Whittington2059⨀+Oxf. & Scholar
6Laet (1518?)[broadside: no complete copy known]
7Compotus1631–2⨀+Oxf. & Scholars & Hands

APPENDIX C.
A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF PERSONS AND PROCEEDINGS CONNECTED WITH BOOK-PRODUCTION AT OXFORD, A.D. 1180–1640.

Three districts in Oxford are associated with the early production of books.

One is Bookbinders Bridge, which is still standing, namely the bridge which as one starts from close under the Castle in Titmouse Lane towards St. Thomas’s Church, crosses the second piece of water. The bridge was on the limits of Oseney Abbey and the neighbouring tenements were largely occupied by binders who worked for the Abbey. See Clark’s edition of Wood’s History of the City, i. 433.

Schidyard St., now Oriel St., is said to imply by its name that it was the locus schediasticorum, the place of writers on schedae or sheets of paper. Certainly with St. John Baptist St. (now Merton St.) and Cat St., it was a great centre for scribes, illuminators, bookbinders, and the like. See Clark’s Wood, as above, i. 139, 175, 184.

Also Cheney Lane, earlier St. Mildred’s Lane, and now Market St., was largely tenanted by the same class. See Clark’s Wood, i. 72.

The stationarius (or virgifer) of the University was regularly appointed (see Clark’s Register of the University, vol. ii, pt. 1, p. 261), and was generally employed to value the books of a scholar after death or sequestration.

But these general facts require to be supplemented by the details which follow: with respect to which it must be remembered that many persons combined several of the trades here recorded, and that, for instance, the earliest printers always bound the books they produced.

[Chief Authorities:—

Coxe. = Catalogus codicum MSS. qui in collegiis aulisque Oxoniensibus hodie adservantur. Confecit H. O. Coxe. (Oxf. 1852.)

Kirchhoff, Albrecht: Die Handschriftenhändler des Mittelalters. Zweite Ausgabe. (Leipz. 1853), pp. 132, 136.

Magd. = Notes from the muniments of St. Mary Magdalen College, Oxford, by the rev. W. D. Macray. (Oxf. 1882.)

Oxf. City Doc. = Oxford City Documents, 1268–1665, edited by J. E. Thorold Rogers. (Oxf. Hist. Soc. vol. xviii, 1891.)

Twyne. = Brian Twyne’s manuscript collections in the Oxford University archives.

Oxf. Univ. Archives—Wills. = An Index to Wills proved in the Court of the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, by John Griffiths. (Oxf. 1862.)]