Fictitious Or Lost Oxford Books.
1459–1584.
1459.
A small sheet of paper printed on the ice-bound Thames at London 18 Jan. 1716 ascribes to Oxford the first printing in England, in the year 1459. Most of the information on the sheet is derived from Atkyns’s Original and Growth of Printing (Lond. 1664).
1461.
Printing was “practised in Oxford in 1461,” according to Randle Holmes’s Academy of Armory (Chester, 1688), quoted in Bigmore, i. 337.
1469–70.
In Herbert’s Ames, iii. 1393 we read:—“In the late Tho. Osborne’s catalogue of books for sale in June 1756, No. 1345 ‘Plinii Secundi Epistolarum, Liber primus. Exemplar elegans, literis initial. colorat. corio turcico, fol. deaur. lineis rubris & auro elegans ornat. 15l. 15s. Oxon. apud F. Corsellis. 1469.’ To which is added this note, ‘Hocce unicum est exemplar notum, a variis allegatum, et vix uni visum adeo ut Phoenix librorum dici mereratur [sic], certe primus est ex libris a Corcellis impressis, cui nomen suum adjunxerit, secundus vero ordine omnium quos unquam ille impressit, priorem scilicet scimus fuisse, Jeronymi Expositionem in Symbol. Apostol. Oxoniae 1468. Anno 1470, varia idem typographus impressit Opuscula, addito in fine nomine, sed nec unicum eorum reperitur hodie integrum. Possident quidam amatores fragmenta aliqua poematum Latinorum, ut Gerardi Lystrii Rhenensis, &c. Carmen Listrii lividorum hominum venenosas linguas, &c.’ 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 at Amsterdam, filled with frivolous excuses for not sending them to him. They were disappointed, and looked on the whole as a Hvm; however the Plinii Epistolæ, and Ger. Listrii Oratio, &c. 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. Lot 2064, and 2622, to which articles are annexed, viz. to Lot 2064, ‘Ad finem hæc verba, Impr. Oxon. apud F. Corsellis, 1470, Manu recentiore exarata sunt.’ Also to lot 2622, ‘Hæc verba, Imprim. Oxon. ap. Corsellis, 1469, Manu recentiore exarata sunt.’ To those who are at all conversant in early printing, the dates will appear at first sight a bungling forgery.” So far Herbert’s Ames, cf. Bowyer and Nichols’s Origin of Printing, 2nd ed. (Lond. 1776), p. 171. The full entry of art. 2064 is “Listrii (Ger.) Oratio habita in Enarrationem Dionysii Halicarnassii; Dionysii Orbis expositio e Greco tralata Prisciano interprete; Ejusdem Carmen in venenosas Linguas Hominum, & Epicedium doctissimi Adoloscentis Ingenisissimique Petri Thessaliensis”: sold to Mr. Dent for £2 3s.: art. 2622 has 1569 for 1469, and was sold to Capt. Smith for £1 6s.
In the Auction Catalogue of the Library of Dr. Abr. de Vries of Haarlem (Amsterdam, Frederick Muller, 1864) art. 181 was:—“Corcellis.—Collection de lettres, copies authentiques, déclarations et notices en 1756 et 57 sur l’imposture fameuse du falsaire G. Smith, à Amsterdam et la Haye, qui fabriqua une édition de Plinii epistolae, avec souscription: Oxoniae, Corcellis. 1469. Hedwigii liber 16. ibidem. 1470, etc. et trompa Mr. P. v. Damme et autres en Angleterre.—Recueillie et conservée pour prouver son innocence à la falsification et annotée par Mr. v. Damme. 12 pc. MS. Collection très-curieuse, contenant e. a. 7 lettres de Smith à v. Damme, une lettre forgée ou falsifié du Comte de Pembroke, une lettre de P. Burman Sec., copie d’une déclaration de Meerman, etc. etc.” It is to be hoped that this interesting collection will be brought to light again.
In the Monthly Miscellany, or Memoirs for the Curious (June 1708), p. 177 it is stated that in the Bishop of Ely’s Library (now at Cambridge) are books “of the first printing in England at Oxford in 1469.”
1480.
“Guido de Columnia de historia Trojana, per T. R. (Theodore Rood). Quarto. 1480.” So Herbert’s Ames, p. 1393. The source of the error was discovered by Cotton to be a forgery in a copy of Guido sine anno et loco preserved in the Earl of Pembroke’s Library at Wilton (Typ. Gaz., 1st ser., 2nd ed., p. 209.)
Before 1487.
“Books from the Oxford Press.... 208*. The Chronicles of England. Folio. Lent by the Earl of Jersey.” So in the Catalogue of the Caxton Celebration, 1877, p. 28. Some error. The reference is no doubt to Caxton’s Chronicle of England, printed in 1482.
1489.
When Cotton printed his Typographical Gazetteer, 2nd series, (Oxf. 1866) he believed that an Indulgence of 1489 (altered to 1499), in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, was printed at Oxford. It is “a small broadside on vellum, consisting of 24 lines only, printed very closely and occupying a space of about nine inches by six.” The Indulgence is from Johannes de Gigliis alias de Liliis Apostolicus Subdiaconus, granted by Pope Innocent iii: and is dated 1499, there being no name of place or date of printing. There is no doubt that Cotton was mistaken in attributing this piece to the Oxford press.
1498.
1. Bagford, in his inaccurate way, gives the title of an edition of the Greek text of the Ethics of Aristotle by Aretinus “Oxon. 1498” (Brit. Mus. MS. Harl. 5901, fol. 3). He mentions the 1479 edition of the Latin text separately, but the former date can only be due to some confusion with the latter.
2. The Rufinus of 1468 appears as dated 1498 in Panzer, who quotes Schoenemann i. 585, and also in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, xxi. col. 17.
1499.
Indulgence: see 1489.
1500.
1. Buridanus: see next article.
2. “Gualtheri Burley Tractatus de materia et forma ac de relativis. Oxonii 1500. 4.” So in Panzer ii (1794) p. 244, quoting Maittaire p. 739, ex Bibl. Bodl. p. 117 (an allusion to an error in the Bodleian Catalogue of 1674, repeated in the 1738 Catalogue p. 206). Bagford makes the same mistake, twisting the author’s name into Johannes Buridanus (Brit. Mus. MS. Harl. 5901, fol. 3). Even Hain (no. 4142) has copied from Panzer. The colophon of 1518. B shows how the error arose, as Cotton points out (Typ. Gaz., 1st ser., 2nd ed., p. 209).
3, 4. Bagford is responsible for two more fictitious Oxford books of 1500. a Quaestiones de lumine et luce (Brit. Mus. MS. Harl. 5901, fol. 3, Bodl. MS. Rawl. D. 375, fol. 103: a confusion with 1518. L) and a Whitinton de heteroclytis nominibus printed at Oxford by Peter Treveris (!) (Bodl. MS. Rawl. D. 375, fol. 103: see 1518. W).
1506.
The following book though not printed at Oxford supplies information about an Oxford bookseller:—[sign. a 1r:—] “Principia seu introduc-tiones fratris peregrini ytalici de lugo in via doctoris subtilis: adipisci eiusdem doctoris doctrinam cupientibus. [at foot:—] Uenundantur autem in alma ac florentissima vniuersitate Oxoniense. in intacte virginis ac immaculate / vico: sancti iohannis euangeliste / ad intersignium. [Then follow 4 tractatus: then on sign. g 4r:—] Expliciunt principia seu introductiones (pro iuuenibus) fratris peregrini de lugo ... Impressa autem Londini. per Richardum pynson. cum solerti cura ac diligentia Honestissimi Iuuenis ac prudentissimi Hugonis Meslier. Expensis autem georgii castellani / oxonii morantis / ad intersignium sancti Iohannis euangeliste: in quo venundatur opus hoc. Finis....” Then follows a 5th treatise, ending with a letter from Peregrinus de Lugo dated “Tholose quarto Kalendas Februarij . M . ccccc . vj.” Herbert’s Ames (iii. 1396) refers this book to Oxford, although at i. 252 it is referred rightly to Pynson’s press at London.
1510.
References to a Compendium quaestiuncularum de luce et lumine, Oxford 1510, will be found in Bagford (Brit. Mus. MS. Harl. 5901, fol. 22v, Bodl. MS. Rawl. D. 375, p. 104), no doubt from the Catalogus librorum MSSrum Angliæ et Hiberniæ (Oxf. 1697, fol.), tom. 2, p. 280, col. 1, among the printed books of John Moore bp. of Norwich. An error for 1518.
1511.
The 1481 Alexander de Hales appears in Bagford (Brit. Mus. MS. Harl. 5901, fol. 23, Bodl. MS. Rawl. D. 375, p. 104) as of 1511, printed at Oxford.
1512.
“Walterus Burleius, super libros Posteriorum. 1512. 4o.” So in Cotton’s Typ. Gaz., 2nd ser., p. 169, and in a longer form in Herbert’s Ames iii. 1396, and Panzer vii. p. 494, quoting Brüggemann i. 172. The source of the mistake is easily found in the colophon of 1517. B, a “v” having been overlooked. The error is repeated in the Bookworm (1868) p. 126.
Before 1519.
According to Cotton (Typ. Gaz., 2nd ser., p. 169) an edition of “Jo. Duns Scotus, Scriptum Oxoniense super primum Sententiarum” (Paris 1519) professes to be “impressa juxta editionem Oxoniensem.” This cannot be correct, unless editio refers only to some traditional method of exposition or arrangement at Oxford.
About 1519.
“The following book printed at the charge of Cardinal Wolsey, with the King’s arms on one side, and the cardinal’s on the other; though it has neither date nor printer’s name, was probably performed about this time [1519] at this place [Oxford].” ‘Libellus prim. epistol. M. Tullii Cicer. Decus Oxoniensium, finitum universitate Oxoniensi. Quarto.’ So in Herbert’s Ames, iii. 1398, and substantially in Bagford’s account (Brit. Mus. MS. Harl. 5901, fol. 24v, Bodl. MS. Rawl. D. 375, fol. 103): see Cotton’s Typ. Gaz., 2nd ser., p. 169. Clearly a blunder. The book which is said to be at Trinity College, Dublin, could not be found there in 1885.
1519.
“Roberti Whitintoni Lichfeldiensis Protovatis Angliæ in Florentissimâ Oxoniensi Academiâ Laureati, Opusculum de Concinnitate Grammatices & Constructione recognitum Anno Domini xix supra Sesquimillesimum, in 4to.” So Bagford (Brit. Mus. MS. Harl. 5901, fol. 23v, cf. Bodl. MS. Rawl. D. 375, p. 103). Probably not printed at Oxford.
Before 1520.
John Dorne, bookseller in Oxford, sold in 1520 several copies of a small book described in his day-book as “Bene fundatum,” “Bene fundatum Oxonie” or “Bene fundatum uosgraf.” This seems to be a trace of a real Oxford book now lost, but no such printer as Vosgraf or Foxgrave (Dorne was from the Low Countries) is known. It would probably belong to the 1517–19 press. See Dorne’s book edited in the Collectanea vol. i of the Oxford Historical Society, 1885. Cotton erroneously reads the title as “Bene sum datum.”
1542.
Shepery’s Hippolytus: see under 1586. S.
1549.
“P. Martyr de Sacramento Eucharistiæ, disputatio hab. in acad., 1549,” 4o. So in the Catalogus librorum R. Davisii, pt. 4 (1692), p. 7, cf. p. 10. Some error.
1564.
“Analysis libri Aristotelis de Sophisticis Elenchis, opera et studio Griff. Poweli.” So in the Catalogus librorum R. Davisii, pt. 2 (1686), p. 72. Error for 1594, which see.
1565.
“Ιωαννοῦ τοῦ Χρυσοστομου Ομιλιαι. Oxonii 1565 in forma minore.” So in the Bibliotheca Gudiana (Hamb. 1706), p. 75: thence in Brüggemann, p. 422. An error for 1586, which see.
1569.
1. Guild’s Throne of David or an Exposition of the 2nd of Samuel. Error in the Catalogus librorum R. Davisii, pt. 1 (1686), p. 164, for 1659, which see.
2. “1569. An account of the Lithuanian translation of the Bible is in the Brit. Museum. Quarto.” So Herbert’s Ames, iii. p. 1398. For 1659, which see under Chylinski, Samuel B.
1576.
Fabricius, J. S.: “Meditationes Sacræ de unitate Ecclesiæ Britannicæ. 1576,” 8vo. So twice in the Catalogus librorum R. Davisii, pt. 2 (1686) p. 20, pt. 3 (1688) p. 11. For 1676, which see.
1578.
“Thesaurus œconomiæ ... Johanne Caso Authore. 1597 ... Again 1578.” So Herbert’s Ames, iii. 1407. Perhaps for 1598, which see, but even that is perhaps an error for 1597!
1584.
Shepery’s Hippolytus: see under 1586. S.