[62] Calendar of State Papers, 1611-18, p. 169.
[63] Ibid. p. 187.
A.D. 1614.
Various orders were made by the Curators at the Visitation on Nov. 10, which are prefixed to the small MS. 'hand-catalogues' made at that time for the use of those authorities. They resolve that the catalogues of newly-published works issued at Frankfort in each spring and summer shall be examined by them within one week after their arrival. They make an attempt to obtain possession of a gift of the Founder's giving, which had never yet reached the place of its intended deposit. In 1609 it had been reported to Convocation that there was about to be sent to the Library by Sir T. Bodley 'toga ex lana agni Tartarici [a]ζωοφυτον], magni quidam valoris, ei data (ut in publica Bibliotheca conservetur) ab Richardo Lee, milite, qui eandem dono recepit ab augustissimo Imperatore Muscoviæ[64].' But the precious cloak had never yet arrived; the Curators therefore resolve 'quod literæ scribantur ad exequutores domini Fundatoris pro illo pretioso pallio ex zoophyto confecto, et legato ad nos per Ric. Leigh, militem, olim legatum apud Imperatorem Russiæ, et quod in cista ex ligno bene olenti, ad eam finem comparanda, reponatur in archivis, munita sera affabre facta; clavis permaneat semper apud Vice-Cancellarium vel ejus deputatum, nec cuiquam illud inspiciendi vel contrectandi potestas esto, nisi in præsentia eorundem.' At this Visitation Joseph
Barnes, the Oxford printer, appeared and promised to give a copy of every book which he might print. Complaint was made that the London Stationers had already begun to fail in the fulfilment of their agreement.
On Aug. 29 the King visited the Library on his way to Woodstock, and, asking for Fulke's Annotations on the Rhemish New Test., pointed out the remarks at Rom. x. 15, on the calling of ministers; 'deprehendit calumnias et imposturas quorundam pontificiorum de ordine et vocatione ministrorum[65].' In 1620 the editions of 1601 and 1617 of these Annotations were both in the Library, as appears from the Catalogue of that year, but in Hyde's Catalogue, published in 1674, only the edition of 1633 is found. This is one out of various instances which prove that, by a great miscalculation of literary value, later editions of a writer's works were thought to supersede so entirely the earlier, that the latter could be advantageously parted with. The Library has, however, since become re-possessed of the earlier editions, that of 1601 having been presented in 1824, and that of 1617 having been bought more recently. But the most remarkable example of this mistaken alienation of books occurs with reference to the first folio edition of Shakespeare. In the Supplemental Catalogue of 1635, the folio of 1623 duly appears; but in the Catalogue of 1674 we find only the third edition, that of 1664, which doubtless had been thought to be sufficient as well as best; upon its arrival, therefore, from Stationers' Hall, the precious volume of 1623 was probably regarded as little more than waste-paper. Nor was it until the year 1821, when Malone's collection was received, that a copy was again possessed by the Library[66].
[64] 'Reg. Conv. K. f. 43,' MS. note by Dr. P. Bliss. Bodley mentions in a letter to James his expectation of exhibiting the 'lamb's-wool-gown' to the King. Reliqq. Bodl. 173. An account of this marvellous garment will be found in the [Appendix].
[65] Wood's Hist. vol. ii. p. 319.
[66] The extraordinary fancy prices sometimes given for books, and their variations, are particularly exemplified in the case of the first folio Shakespeare. In 1778 Stevens said it was 'usually valued at seven or eight' guineas. (Shakespeare, second edit. vol. i. p. 239.) At the Roxburghe sale (a sufficiently bibliomaniacal one) in 1812 a copy was sold for £100; in 1864 Miss Burdett Coutts gave for Mr. G. Daniel's specially fine copy, £716 2s.; while in July, 1867, a copy belonging to a Mr. — Smith was sold for £410. In Dec. 1867 another copy was on sale at Mr. Beet's, the bookseller, to which the owner very discreetly attached in his catalogue no specific sum.