PRINTERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH AND RESTORATION
The printer who succeeded Roger Daniel, John Legate the younger, has already been mentioned in connection with the agreement of 1639 between Buck and the Stationers. Admitted freeman of the Stationers' Company in 1619, he took over several of the books printed by his father, including Thomas's Dictionary. For many years before his appointment he had described himself as printer to the university and shortly after the grace for his election (5 July, 1650) he and William Graves, another Cambridge stationer, "entered into recognisances with two sureties of £300 each not to print any seditious or unlicensed books, pamphlets, or pictures, nor suffer their presses to be used for that purpose"—a pledge similar to that given by the brothers Buck in the previous year.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of Legate's short tenure of the office of printer is the fact that Thomas Buck, without resigning his patent, made an agreement with him and Octavian Pulleyn by which he undertook to hand over his printing rights to the Stationers' Company of London:
The said Mr Buck shall surcease to print in Cambridge, and soe long as he shall forbeare to exercise his printing place there, that the said Companie of Stationers ... shall pay unto the said Mr Buck the summe of twenty pounds per Annum....
Neither the said Thomas Buck nor his brother John Buck shall resyne their ... Patents for the Printers place, without the consent of the aforesaid John Legate ... soe as the said Mr Legate may enjoy the sole exercise of Printing in the University of Cambridge....
In regard Mr Buck hath many Bookes which he hath lately printed in Cambridge now lieing upon his hand (some whereof he hath lately printed whilst he freed Mr Legate from takeing the share of the Presse in Cambridge whereunto he had otherwise been obliged) the said Companie of Stationers shall really, and bona fide, use the utmost of their best indeavours to sell all the said bookes....
For all the letter in the Printinge house of Cambridge (mentioned in founders' Bills and bought since Mr Legate was first chosen to be a Printer in Cambridge, as also the long Primmer and Pica-greeke ...) the Companie of Stationers shall pay unto the said Thomas Buck two full third parts of the several prices they cost....
The said John Legate shall oblige himself soe to exercise the Priviledge of Printing in the University of Cambridge as may be most for the honor, and reputation of the said University, soe as the said Mr Thomas and John Buck may noe wayes be injured in their reputation, but may safely forbeare the exercise of their severall printinge Places in the said University[60].
This last obligation, however, does not appear to have been fulfilled, since Legate's patent was cancelled for neglect in 1655[61].
John Field, who followed him, was in close touch with the Parliamentary party. Before his appointment by grace of 12 October, 1655, he had been "printer to the parliament" and had produced several editions of the bible, as well as a number of political tracts.
The London Printers Lamentacon, or, the Press opprest, and overprest (? 1660) contained a violent outburst against him:
Who printed the pretended Act of the Commons of England for the setting up an High Court of Justice, for the tryall of his Martyred Majesty in 1648? Or, the Acts for abolishing King-ship, and renouncing the Royall Line and Title of the Stuarts? Or, for the Declaring what Offences should be adjudged Treason?... or, the Proclamation of 13. of September 1652 after the fight at Worcester, offering, One Thousand pound to any person, to bring in his Majesties person? but only John Feild Printer to the Parliament of England (and since by Cromwell was and is continued Printer to the University of Cambridge!) ... Have they[62] not invaded and still do intrude upon His Maiesties Royall Priviledge, Praerogative and Praeeminence.... Have they not obtained, (and now keep in their actuall possession) the Manuscript Copy of the last Translation of the holy Bible in English (attested with the hands of the Venerable and learned Translators in King James his time) ever since 6 March 1655[63]?
On receiving his appointment Field built a "large shop or printing-house" in Silver Street, the land being leased to the university by Queens' College. The new press stood on part of the site now occupied by the master's lodge of St Catharine's College, and served as the university printing house until about 1827.
Between 1650 and the year of Field's death (1668) there was, as may be seen from Appendix II, a considerable output of books from the press. Not many are of intrinsic importance, but the titles show considerable variety and a further point of interest is that the printer's copies of a large number of imprimaturs of books printed between 1656 and 1692 have been preserved[64]. Orders "for the better government of the presses and Printers" were reaffirmed by the Vice-Chancellor and Heads in 1655 and it is clear that the university at this time exercised a closer supervision over its press than in the days when Buck conducted his independent negotiations with the London Stationers. The specimen imprimatur which is reproduced overleaf shows the care with which Field preserved his authority for printing any particular book.
One of the first books printed by Field was The History of the University of Cambridge by Thomas Fuller (1655), who, in spite of his Royalist convictions, appears to have raised no objection to his work being printed by one who styled himself "one of his Highness's Printers."
IMPRIMATUR FOR A BIBLE, 1662
Cromwell's death in 1658 called forth the customary Musarum Cantabrigiensium Luctus & Gratulatio, containing a Hebrew poem by Cudworth; whilst two years later Field, with fine impartiality, printed Academiae Cantabrigiensis ΣΩΣΤΡΑ, as well as two editions of the speech delivered by Richard Love in honour of the return of Charles II and a sermon by John Spencer on the same happy theme. Several bibles were printed during this period, including a folio "with Chorograph Sculps by T. Ogilby" (1660)[65]. Field, however, did not (in the earlier years of his career, at any rate) maintain the high reputation of Cambridge bibles established by Buck and Daniel; for in 1656 William Kilburne presented a statement to the Vice-Chancellor showing a long list of errata in bibles printed by Field in 1653, 1655, and 1656. These errata were based upon an examination only of a few sheets and in a note at the end of the list it is stated:
If those severall Bibles were read over throughout, they would be found egregiously erroneous, without all question; And of the severall Impressions, there were about fower score Thousand printed, And all, or the greatest part of them sold by Mr Field and dispersed, to the great scandall of the Church[66].
Amongst the editions of classical authors printed during this period may be noted Statius (1651), Poetae Minores Graeci (1652, 1661, 1667), Terence (1654), Cicero, de Officiis etc. (1660), Homer (1664), Sophocles (1665, 1669), Sallust (1665).
Editions of Euclid appeared in 1655 and 1665, the former by Isaac Barrow, afterwards Lucasian Professor and Master of Trinity College.
A work which has a special interest in the history of the study of botany in Cambridge is Catalogus plantarum circa Cantabrigiam nascentium (1660) to which ("in gratiam tyronum") various indexes were added. The author was John Ray, of St Catharine's, afterwards Fellow of Trinity College.
Controversial theology is, of course, prominent; Ichabod: Or Five Groans of the Church (1663) prudently foresees and passionately bewails the Church's Second Fall and on the title-page is a mournful female figure holding a church in her lap.
A work of lighter fancy is University Queries, In a gentle Touch by the By (1659). One of the queries propounded runs:
Whether if the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford should be annihilated, and the revenues imployed to the publique affairs of this Commonwealth, (Religion being now out of date, and learning of no use, where men are so generally inspired,) it is not fitting that Brasen Nose College in Oxford should be exempted from that general devastation, as a memorial of the Respect they bore to Oliver late Lord Protector.
This period was not free from disputes between the university and the London Stationers. Field and his partner had in 1655 bought from Christopher and Matthew Barker "ye Manuscript Coppie of the Bible," and the right of printing it, for £1200. In August 1662 two letters were received by the Vice-Chancellor from Charles II, ordering the university to "forbeare to print the Bible and new Testament otherwise than according to the Orders of 1623 and 1629." The university appealed against this and Lord Clarendon appointed a day for hearing both parties—the King's printers and the university. Field undertook not to publish any prayer-books until further orders; Clarendon proposed "an accommodation by way of agreement," and John Pearson, Bishop of Chester, advised the university to make a composition with its rivals. From another correspondent, who signs himself W. D.[67], the Vice-Chancellor received very different advice:
The University's priviledge is looked upon as a trust for the publick good, and theire printing of these bookes will force the Londoners to print something tolerably true ... who otherwise looking meerly at gaine will not care how corruptly they print, witness the 200 blasphemy's wch Mr B. found in theire bibles; & the millions of faults in their schoolbookes, increasing in every edition, so long as Mr B's composition with the stationers held ... whence it was that often errors were drunk in in grammer schooles scarcely after to be corrected at the University, unlesse schoolmrs were so careful as to correct bookes by hand before they lett theire boys have them. It being therefore the University's interest to have youths well and truly grounded in school bookes & the interest of the whole nation to have true bibles, I cannot but think the University trustees in both respects, & feare they would afterwards rew the betraying of so great a trust if they should sell it by farming[68].
The university appears to have taken this advice and a New Testament printed by Field appeared in 1666.
Field's name is found in the St Botolph's parish books from 1657 to 1668, and in 1660 he was churchwarden.
He died on 12 August, 1668, and no successor was immediately appointed, a letter being received by the Vice-Chancellor from the King requesting that the office should not be filled for a time.
At this point the names of Thomas and John Buck re-appear. In a petition to the Vice-Chancellor they repeat accusations, made against Field in 1665, both of false printing and of failure to pay sums due to the two brothers[69]. Whether the claim against Field's estate was substantiated does not appear, but it is evident that Thomas and John Buck still held their printer's patents in 1668.
The first election made after Field's death was that of Matthew Whinn, Registrary, in March, 1669; this seems, however, to have been a purely formal appointment and Field's successor was in fact John Hayes, who was elected in October of the same year, the printing having previously been leased to him for £100 a year, on the condition that there should be no further treaty with the London Stationers.
The books printed during the earlier part of Hayes's tenure of office are similar in general character to those of his predecessor John Field. Dyer describes the Andronicus Rhodius of 1679 as an editio optima and among the other books of the period will be found the usual congratulatory, or lachrymatory, symposia evoked by the funeral of Henrietta Maria, the marriage of William and Mary, the death of Charles II; several university and assize sermons; editions of Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, Terence, Lucretius, Ovid, Livy, Sallust; Crashaw's Steps to the Temple and the second edition of Poemata et Epigrammata (1670); John Ray's Collection of Proverbs (1670 and 1678); editions of à Kempis, De Christo Imitando (1685), of Erasmus, Enchiridion (1685), and of North's Plutarch's Lives (1676); as well as bibles, prayer-books, and almanacks. The almanacks are an interesting feature of Cambridge printing at this period. Every year, under a pseudonymous heading (Dove, Swallow, Pond, Swan, etc.), a number of these attractive little books were issued.
ALMANACK, 1675
The title-page of Swan (1675) is reproduced here and in A Brief Chronology included in the book the history of the world is summarised from the Creation (4004 B.C.) and the Flood (2347 B.C.) to the building of Cambridge (635 A.D.) and the peace with the Dutch (1674 A.D.).
At this time the printing of Hebrew seems to have fallen into disuse, as Isaac Abendana, writing from Cambridge in 1673, complains:
Paravi nuperrime versionem ... sed his desunt characteres Hebr.[70]
Hayes probably remained as printer—in name, at any rate—until his death in 1705, since there is in existence a bond of 1703, by which John Hayes and John Collyer (a London stationer) promised to pay the university £150 a year so long as Hayes continued as printer[71].
A pleasant description of the printing-house in 1689 is preserved in the diary of Samuel Sewall, an American judge who visited Cambridge in that year:
By it [Katherine Hall] the Printing Room, which is about 60 foot long and 20 foot broad. Six presses. Had my cousin Hull and my name printed there. Paper windows, and a pleasant garden along one side between Katherine Hall and that. Had there a print of the Combinations[72].
During Hayes's lifetime several other appointments to the office of printer were made: John Peck (1680), Hugh Martin (1682), James Jackson (1683), Jonathan Pindar (1686), H. Jenkes (1693), another Jonathan Pindar (1697)[73]. All these appointments seem, however, to have been merely formal. They were, presumably, the last to be made in accordance with the original provision of the charter of 1534, by which the university was empowered to elect three printers simultaneously. Far more important was the arrival of Cornelius Crownfield. As early as 1694 his name appears on the title-page of Joshua Barnes's edition of Euripides of which Dyer says: "the magnificence and typographical excellence ... form an epoch in the History of Greek Printing at Cambridge. It reminds us of the blooming infancy of this useful art, and the Harlem press"; and Crownfield's appointment, in 1698 or earlier, as Inspector of the Press, was part of an energetic movement to establish Cambridge printing on a new basis.
RICHARD BENTLEY—THE FIRST PRESS SYNDICATE
In the movement for the revival of Cambridge typography at the end of the seventeenth century the most prominent name is that of Richard Bentley.
The renovation of the University Press (writes his biographer, Monk), which had continued in decay since the Usurpation, was projected by him, and mainly accomplished through his agency. New buildings, new presses, and new types were all requisite; and the University itself being destitute of funds, a subscription for these purposes was procured principally by his exertions; and the deficiency was made up by the Senate borrowing a thousand pounds. The task of ordering types of every description was absolutely committed to his discretion by a grace in very complimentary terms; and the power of attorney given him on this occasion is the most unlimited I recollect ever to have seen[74].
The reference to the continuous decay of the Press during fifty years savours of exaggeration. The typographical inaccuracies in Field's bibles, it is true, became notorious; but it was Field who built the new printing-house and from 1655 onwards there is no year in which the continuity of book-production is broken.
RICHARD BENTLEY
On the other hand, it is clear that the old system inaugurated by the charter of 1534 had broken down. Under that system the university simply licensed tradesmen (who might, or might not, be members of the university) to print and sell books; and the proper working of the Press was dependent on the capabilities of the individual printer. He might be bullied by the London Stationers, as were Thomas Thomas and John Legate (the elder), and involve the university in a long series of petitions and counter-petitions; on the other hand he might make commercially profitable arrangements with the Stationers' Company, as did Thomas Buck, and disregard the interests of the university; he might accept the office with no intention of printing, but simply in the interests of a family monopoly, as did Francis Buck; or he might neglect his duties altogether, as did John Legate, the younger.
Consequently, the standard of typography, the expansion of the Press buildings, and the purchase of new type were at the mercy of the commercial fortunes of the holders of the patents.
It was with the object of bringing the Press directly under the control of the university and, at the same time, of making it worthier of Cambridge scholarship that the movement associated with Bentley's name began.
The formal initiative came from the Chancellor himself. On 29 June, 1696, the Duke of Somerset wrote to the members of the Senate:
Gentlemen
As I have ye honour to be a servant to you all, soe am I ever thinking of wt may be most for yr interest, and for ye support of that reputation, and great character wch ye University have soe worthily deserved in ye opinion of all good, and of all learned men: & in my poore thoughtes, noe way more effectual, than the recovering ye fame of yr own printing those great, and excellent writinges, yt are soe frequently published from ye Members of yr own body; wch tho' very learned, sometimes have been much prejudiced by ye unskillful handes of uncorrect printers. Therefore it is, yt I doe at this time presume to lay before you all, a short, and imperfect Scheame (here enclosed) of some thoughtes of mine, by way of a foundation, for you to finishe, and to make more perfect; wch tho' never soe defective at present, yett they have mett with aprobation among some publick spirited men (much deserving the name of friends to us) who have freely contributed eight hundred pounds towards ye Carying on this good, and most beneficiall worke.
Now, Gentlemen, their is nothing wanting of my part, to endeavour the procuring the like su[̄m]e againe from others, but yr aprobation, and consent, to have a Presse once more erected at Cambridge: and when that shall bee resolved on, then to give a finishing hand (like great Masters as you are) to my unfinished thoughtes, that I may be proude in having done some thing, yt you think will bee for your service; wch I doe hope will bee a meanes to procure mee a general pardonn from you all, for laying this Matter before you, having noe other ambition, than to bee thought your most obedient and most faithfull humble servant.
Somerset.
The duke himself lent the university the sum of £200 towards the cost of the scheme[75] and the Senate quickly acted on his letter, for on 10 July a grace was passed authorising Bentley to act on behalf of the university and the power of attorney, referred to by Monk, gave him
potestatem generalem et mandatum speciale omnimoda literarum et characterum genera ab exteris gentibus comparandi et omnia ad idem negotium spectantia et pertinentia pro arbitratu suo perquirendi et sumptibus Academiae in nostrum usum coemendi.
"The commission," says Monk, "was executed with promptitude and judgment: he procured to be cast in Holland those beautiful types which appear in Talbot's Horace, Kuster's Suidas, Taylor's Demosthenes, &c."[76]
The next step was a grace of the Senate for the appointment of the first Press Syndicate:
Placeat vobis, ut Dnus Procancellarius, Singuli Collegiorum Praefecti, Dni Professores, Mr Laughton Coll. Trin. Academiae Architypographus, Dr Perkins Regin. Mr Talbot and Mr Lightfoot Trin. Mr Nurse Joh. Mr Beaumont Petr. Mr Moss CCC. Mr Banks Aul. Pemb. Mr Leng Aul. Cath. Mr Pierce Em̄an. Mr Wollaston Sidn. Mr Gael Regal. aut eorum quinque ad minus, quorum semper unus sit Dnus Procancellarius, sint Curatores Praeli vestri Typographici
lect. & concess. 21 Jan. 169⅞.
Though Hayes retained his position as printer, the active part in the renovation of the Press was taken by Crownfield in his capacity as Inspector. Crownfield is described by Ames as "a Dutchman, who had been a soldier, and a very ingenious man"; and the earliest orders of the newly-appointed Curators seem to have been carried out by him.
A new printing-house, facing Queens' Lane, was built to the north of that established by John Field; and for some years it appears that both may have been in use[77]. But in 1716 a grace was passed allotting the new printing-house (as being Academiae alioquin infructuosum) to the use of the Professors of Chemistry and Anatomy for lectures and experiments, and the printing was carried on at the older press at the corner of Queens' Lane and Silver Street.
The Curators' activities may be illustrated by some extracts from the first Order Book[78]:
Aug. 23rd 1698
1 Agreed then at a meeting of ye Curators of ye University-Press, yt Mr Jacob Tonson have leave to print an edition of Virgil, Horace, Terence, Catullus, Tibullus and Propertius in 4to with ye double Pica Letter: he paying to such persons as shall be appointed by ye said Curators 12s p. Sheet for ye impression of 500 copies: 14s for 750; and so in proportion for a greater Number: and yt Dr Mountague, Dr Covell, Mr Leng, Mr Laughton and Mr Talbot shall sign ye Articles of ye agreement above mentioned, on ye part of ye University.
2 Agreed at ye same time, yt Mr Edmund Jeffries have leave to print an Edition of Tully's works in 12mo with the Brevier Letter: he paying 1l. 10s. ye sheet for 1000 Copies.
3 That Cornelius Crownfield have leave to send to Roterdam for 300l weight of ye double Pica letter in order to ye Printing of Virgil, Horace, &c in ye manner above mentioned.
The next extract shows the executive arrangements made by the Curators; clearly the whole body (including the Heads of Houses and Professors) was too large to handle the details of administration and committees of delegates were appointed to take monthly tours of duty.
Provision was also made for the reading of proofs by competent scholars to be nominated by the editor and approved by the delegates.
Octob. 17. 98.
Present Dr James Vicechancellour, Dr Covell, Dr Blithe, Dr Roderick, Dr Smoult, Dr Perkins, Mr Barnet, Mr Laughton, Mr Leng, Mr Beaumont, Mr Pearse, Mr Wollaston, Mr Talbot, Mr Bennett.
1 Agreed yt all resolves made at any meeting of ye Curatours for the press be entered in ye Register for ye Press.
2 That ye Major part of ye Curatours present at any meeting shall determine who shall write ye resolves then made into ye said Register.
3 That all graces granted by ye Senate relating to ye Press be entered into ye said Register.
4 That there shall be a general meeting of ye Curatours upon ye first Wednesday in every month.
5 That ye general monthly meeting shall determine, wt persons shall be delegates for ye said Month.
6 That the sd delegates appointed by them shall meet weekly on Wednesdays at 2 of ye clock in ye afternoon.
7 That every Editour shall appoint his own inferiour Correctour to attend ye press.
8 That no Editour shall have power to appoint any inferiour Correctour to attend ye Press, but such as shall be approved by the delegates, & yt ye allowance for ye Correctours labour be set by ye delegates.
The delegates for this month are Mr Vice-Chancellour Mr Peirse, Mr Leng, Mr Talbot, Mr Bennett.
Wednesday Octob. 26. 1698
1 Ordered, yt Mr Cornelius Crownfield do go to London to procure an Alphabet of Box flourish't Letters, and to retain Workmen for the Press, and to take care for ye Carriage of Mr Tonson's Paper: and to hasten ye return of ye double Pica Letter from Holland.
2 Upon ye proposall of Mr Talbot of Ds Penny[79] to be his correctour for ye edition of Horace with ye approbation of ye delegates; agreed, yt the said Ds Penny be spoken to to undertake ye said office of Correctour.
January ye 4th 1698/9.
At a meeting of Eight of ye Curators—
Ordered that Mr Talbot have full power to treat about & procure a Rolling press fit for ye service of ye Printing house the charges thereof to be defrayed out of such money as he shall receive upon subscriptions to ye press at London.
Agreed also that 4 pence p̲ week for copy money be allowed to ye workmen at ye Press and half a crown p̲ Quarter for cleaning ye Press[80].
The three following entries show that in their first few years of office, at any rate, the Curators approached their duties in a business-like way:
March 4 1698
1 Orderd, that a particular account of each Body of Letter, & of all Tooles & Moveables belonging to ye New Printing House be taken in writing in ye presence of the Delegates for ye weekly meetings of this Month, and yt it be entered into ye Journal Book by ye person appointed to keep that Book: and yt ye said account be sign'd by ye Delegates, & Mr Crownfield ye Printer....
3 Order'd, That all Combinations, Verses, and other exercises upon Public Occasions be printed only at ye University's New Printing House.
May 3rd 1699
Ordered—that 400 lbs weight of Paragon Greek Letter be sent for to the Widow Voskins in Holland.
At a general meeting of the Curators June 7th 1699
Order'd that Dr Green & Dr Oxenden or either of them do examine Dr Bentley's account in relation to our Press, and upon his delivery of the Vouchers relating to it, and all other things in his hands belonging to the University Press; give him a full discharg; and likewise take a discharg of him for the Summ of four hundred and thirty three pounds received by him of the University.
1 At a General Meeting of the Curatrs Septebr ye 6th 1699 'twas then agreed yt Mr Crownfield be order'd to buy twelve Gallons of Linseed Oyle and a rowl of Parchment.
2 Order'd yt ye Sashes be renew'd.
3 Order'd yt twenty shillings per annū be allowed to Printers for their weigh-goes.
This last entry refers to the printers' annual holiday of which Randall Holme, writing in 1688, says
It is customary for all journeymen to make every year, new paper windows about Bartholomew-tide, at which time the master printer makes them a feast called a waygoose to which is invited the corrector, founder, smith, ink-maker, etc., who all open their purses and give to the workmen to spend in the tavern or ale-house after the feast. From which time they begin to work by candle light[81].
By 1701 Bentley's activities had begun to bear fruit.
Already (says Monk) some handsome editions of Latin Classics had been printed.... Terence had been edited by Leng, of Catharine Hall, afterwards Bishop of Norwich; Horace by Talbot, the Hebrew Professor; Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius by the Hon. Arthur Annesley, Representative for the University; and Virgil by J. Laughton of Trinity.
Nor was it only in Holland that search was made for beautiful types. In 1700 Matthew Prior was sent, on behalf of the university, to procure Greek type (the famous Grecs du Roi) from the Paris press. The negotiations, however, fell through owing to the demand of the French that on the title-page of any book for which their type was used there should be added after the words typis Academicis, a full acknowledgment in the form Caracteribus Græcis e typographeo regio Parisiensi. Correspondence passed between Prior, the Earl of Manchester, the Chancellor, and the Abbé Bynon, but the university refused to comply with this condition[82].
Of the books printed about this time we may note first the works edited by Bentley himself.
The title-page of the famous edition of Horace (1711) is reproduced here and a full account both of its compilation and of its reception may be read in Monk's Life:
This publication had been long and anxiously expected; and its appearance excited much sensation and surprise. There were found between seven and eight hundred alterations of the common readings of Horace; all of which, contrary to the general practice of classical editors, were introduced into the text.... This book was, it must be confessed, unlike any edition of a Latin author ever before given to the world.
TITLE-PAGE OF BENTLEY'S EDITION OF HORACE, 1711
Especially characteristic of the atmosphere in which Bentley lived and worked is "the important affair of the dedication." Having discovered that the Earl of Oxford was "anxious that the world should know, that his ancestors were related to the Veres and Mortimers of former centuries, and that his family estate in Herefordshire had been in possession of the Harleys since the reign of Edward the First," Bentley took particular pains that these glories should be "fully and accurately displayed." "Good taste" comments Monk "had not yet abolished the fashion, which demanded from every dedicator, whether classical or vernacular, the most unsparing praise that language could supply."
Bentley's edition of Terence (1726) was designed, characteristically, to supplant and extinguish that of Francis Hare, Dean of Worcester. The text was corrected "in not less than a thousand places" and in every line the first accented syllable of every dipodia was marked with an acute accent—"a laborious task, which must have vastly increased the trouble of correcting the press." Included in the first half of the volume were a Schediasma or dissertation upon the metres of Terence and Bentley's Commencement Oration of 1725, on the occasion of the creation of seven Doctors of Divinity. The second half of the book consisted of an edition of Phaedrus and Publius Syrus, the Phaedrus being undertaken to anticipate an edition projected by Hare containing emendations "of the most daring class."
A Sermon upon Popery, preached by Bentley before the university on 5 November, 1715, and printed in the same year, is of interest not only as an expression of the vigorous No-Popery spirit of 1715, but as supplying material and phraseology for the sermon recited by Corporal Trim in the second book of Tristram Shandy.
It was Bentley, too, who arranged for the publication of a second edition of Newton's Principia in 1713. "The first impression being entirely exhausted," says Monk, "the lovers of philosophy were, in a manner, debarred access to the fountain of truth" and Bentley engaged Roger Cotes to supervise the new edition.
Into the history of Bentley's many controversies it is fortunately unnecessary to enter, but one of his pamphlets, which brought the university printer into the Vice-Chancellor's court on a charge of libel, must be mentioned.
In 1721 there appeared a pamphlet, written by Conyers Middleton, but published anonymously in London, entitled Remarks, Paragraph by Paragraph, upon the Proposals lately publish'd by Richard Bentley, for a New Edition of the Greek Testament and Latin Version, and full of "sheer personal malice." Bentley's proposals were described as "low and paltry higgling to squeeze our money from us," reminiscent of "those mendicants in the streets, who beg our charity with an half sheet of proposals pinned upon their breasts."
Bentley's reply was prompt and vigorous; he chose to assume that the author of the pamphlet was Dr John Colbatch, the Casuistical Professor[83], and answered him in what Monk describes as the vocabulary of Billingsgate. "Cabbage-head," "Maggot," "Gnawing-rat," "Mountebank" were some of the terms used. "He never," wrote Bentley, "broaches a piece of mere knavery, without a preface about his conscience; nor ever offers to us downright nonsense, without eyes, muscles, and shoulders wrought up into the most solemn posture of gravity."
This was too much, even for academic controversy of the eighteenth century; Colbatch, having first disavowed the authorship of the Remarks, appealed to the Heads of Colleges. This body declared the book to be "a most virulent and scandalous libel" and Crownfield was prosecuted in the Vice-Chancellor's Court for having sold it. Dr Crosse, the Vice-Chancellor, was a "quiet and timid man" and after hazarding a judgment in Crownfield's favour, adjourned the case. In the next year Bentley was cited to appear in the Vice-Chancellor's Court to give evidence concerning the libel. "There was no difficulty," says Monk, "in obtaining the citation, but a great one in getting it served upon the Master: the Esquire-beadles ... were all as averse to such perilous service, as the mice in the fable were to undertake the office of belling the cat." One of the beadles, however, was bribed with a double fee, and Bentley offered no resistance. Instead, he contrived, by an exchange with a brother-chaplain, to be on duty at St James's during the month in which the Court was to assemble and eventually the proceedings against him were abandoned.
The most ambitious work which the University Press undertook about this time was an edition of the Suidas Lexicon in three volumes folio. For this enterprise Bentley was chiefly responsible. Ludolf Kuster, a professor from Berlin, had collated three of the Suidas manuscripts at Paris and was invited by Bentley to take up his residence at Cambridge and to publish his edition of the lexicon at the Press. Accordingly on 4 October, 1701, the university made an agreement with John Owen, an Oxford stationer, by which Owen undertook to purchase an edition of 1500 copies (150 on large paper) of Suidas in three volumes at the price of £1 10s 6d per sheet[84].
The exact relation of Owen to Cambridge is not quite clear. Evidently, he was a protegé of Bentley and though there is no record of his official appointment as a Cambridge printer, several books bear his imprint as Typographus, including Cellarius, Geographia 1703; Ockley, Introductio 1706; Caesar, 1706; Minucius Felix, 1707; Sallust, 1710[85]. The word typographus, as Bowes pointed out, is used rather loosely and Owen seems only to have been the publisher of the books quoted; on the other hand, there are among Crownfield's vouchers for 1705 the following:
June 23. 1705
Then received of Mr Corn. Crownfield (for the use of Mr Davies, and for correcting Caesars Commentary) the summe of thirty seven shillings and four pence, being for 28 sheets at 16d the sheet from A to Ee, inclusive by me
| £ | s | d | ——————————John Owen |
| 01 | 17 | 4 |
Compos'd in Caesar's Commentary's the sheets Ccc, Ddd, Eee, Fff at 8s the sheet—l1 12s 0d
Sept. 17. 1705
Receiv'd by John Owen
These receipts appear to show that Owen actually was at work as a compositor upon Davies's edition of Caesar which appeared with the imprint Impensis Joannis Oweni, Typographi[86].
From passages in Bentley's correspondence it also appears that Owen travelled in Holland on Bentley's behalf in 1706[87].
But long before this Owen had found himself unable, "through great poverty and being imprisoned on the amount of debts contracted," to carry out the Suidas agreement, and on 8 May, 1703, a new contract was made with Sir Theodore Janssen, who had already supplied Owen with large quantities of paper, for the completion of the work at the joint expense of the university and of Janssen himself, the editor's fee being fixed at £200[88].
As has been noted above, however, the Press continued to print certain other books for Owen. Thus Janssen writes to Crownfield on 19 October, 1704:
I have sent you to-day 150 Reams of fine genoa paper which is to be for ye use of Mr Jon Owen when he hath signed an agreement such as Dr Bentley doth require ...[89].
In later years Owen seems to have laid his misfortunes at Bentley's door, since, in a dedication written by him to "Elias Abenaker of London, Gent." and prefixed to Ockley's translation of Modena, History of the present Jews (ed. 1711), he writes:
I ... want Words to tell the World how much I am your Debtor, how often you have rescued me and my whole Family from the Jaws of Destruction; what noble Assistances you have supplied me with, to raise my Fortune in the World, and put my Affairs into a prosperous and flourishing Condition, had not a Person of an high Character, and a pretending Encourager of Arts and Sciences, and Printing in particular, (by the Encouragement of whose specious Promises I was induced to leave Oxford) been as Sedulous and Industrious to ruine and destroy me, by such Injustice and Cruelties, which if I should particularize, would gain Credit with few but those of the University of Cambridge, where the Fact is notoriously known[90].
In the meantime Kuster's edition of Suidas had duly appeared in 1705:
Kuster (writes Monk) having now, by means of his [Bentley's] patronage, completed the three noble volumes of his Suidas, their appearance raised the fame of the editor, while it excited public admiration at the spirit and liberality of the University of Cambridge in undertaking so magnificent a publication.
Correspondence between Janssen and Crownfield throws some interesting side-lights on business details—the fixing of the price and the choice of selling agents[91]:
Now that ye hurry of treating her Majty is over[92] (writes Janssen) I hope ye University will come speedily to a resolution at what rate to sell Suidas, I would not have them to think of too high a price and I believe 3£ will be rather too much hoever I leave it to them but I hope they will not exceed 3£ which is 20s a volume.
KUSTER'S RECEIPT FOR A PORTION OF HIS FEE
Dr Bentley had told me you would write to some booksellers in Holld. Since we refused Mr Mortier's offers it might perhaps be of service but I think we could not pitch on a fitter person for disposing of a good quantity of Suidas beyond sea.
Bentley's financial negotiations with the Dutch booksellers were apparently not successful, since copies of the Lexicon were disposed of to foreign booksellers by the method of exchange:
Feby 1th 1705/6. Agreed then also yt foreign booksellers be treated with for an exchange of an hundred[93] Suidas's, for a number of bookes wch shall be esteem'd of equal value, & yt Catalogues of proper bookes wth their respective prises, be procur'd from them to be approv'd of by ye University.
The succession of troubles encountered by the university both in the production and distribution of this book illustrates the difficulties of the Curators in attempting to grapple with the details of stock-keeping and accountancy. By 1732 "part of ye impression was in ye University warehouse and ye rest was got into Mr Innys's[94] hands in London, but in such manner, yt neither had a perfect book."
After some two or three years of negotiation for the mutual purchase of sheets at ½d a piece, the university, having bought the whole of Innys's stock for £400, acquired 410 complete sets of the work and appointed a Syndicate to dispose of them. The Syndics, however, found remaindering difficult:
It were well (says the writer of a memorandum of 1749) if we could get some one to take them all off our hands at almost any rate. I have tried Knapton and Whiston in vain. They durst not venture on the whole: but advise to advertize them at 30s a Book, and let ye Booksellers have them at 25s....
I have hopes yt Vailliant may take them all at 25s a book, especially if he be allowed time for payment of the money, & ye University would take some of it in books, which we really want for ye Rustat Library[95].
Eventually, in 1752, 75 sets were disposed of to T. Merrill (a Cambridge bookseller) at one guinea each and the rest seem to have been exchanged[96]. So ended the most ambitious of the early publishing enterprises of the university.
Amongst the other books printed during this period, editions of the classics are prominent. The titles of these will be found in Appendix II and Davies's editions of Cicero, Barnes's Anacreon (1705) and Homer (1711), Taylor's Lysias (1740) may be specially noted. The edition of the Medea and Phoenissae of Euripides by W. Piers (1703) contains, in its preface, an interesting tribute to the renovation of Cambridge typography:
Si Typorum elegantiam mireris, gratias merito ingentes habeto Illustrissimo Principi Carolo Duci Somersetensium munificentissimo nostrae Academiae Cancellario, cui Cordi est nostrum imo suum denuò revixisse Typographéum.
Mathematics is represented primarily by the second edition of Newton's Principia (1713), by Le Clerc's Physica (1700 etc.), by Robert Green's Principles of Natural Philosophy (1712—an anti-Newtonian treatise) and by the Praelectiones (1707 and 1710) and other works of W. Whiston; biography by Knight's Life of Erasmus (1726); Oriental studies by Ockley's Introductio ad Linguas Orientales (1706) and Lyons's Hebrew Grammar (1735).
A work of more general interest is the first edition of Sir Thomas Browne's Christian Morals, published from the ms of the Author by John Jeffery and printed by Crownfield in 1716.
A COMPOSITOR'S RECEIPT, 1705
(Among the items may be noted one of Sir Isaac Newton's works and the Vice-Chancellor's order putting Sturbridge Fair out of bounds)
These, of course, are only a few titles selected from the bibliography of the period.
TITLE PAGE OF CHRISTIAN MORALS, 1716
Between 1725 and 1738/9 there are no entries in the Curators' minute-book; the driving power of Bentley's energy and enthusiasm was flagging and the Press had become a source of pecuniary loss to the university. The agreements of 1706 and 1727 with the Stationers, by which the university surrendered the right of printing a large number of school books in return for money payments, no doubt represent an attempt to meet this difficulty[97].
Similarly in December, 1730, it was resolved to lease the university's right of printing bibles and prayer-books to "Mr James & Company" for the sum of £100 per annum, an additional £5 per annum to be paid during the lifetime of Jonathan Pindar, whose formal resignation had been arranged by a grace of 28 August[98].
This arose out of an application which has a special interest in the history of printing.
About the beginning of 1730 William Fenner, a London stationer,
did bring up from Edinburgh a Scotsman named Wm Ged; who had or pretended to have found out the Art of casting, upon Plates, whole Pages of Letters ... wch 'twas thought would be of great advantage to the publick, as well as to the proprietors of the Invention.
This invention came to the notice of a type-founder named Thomas James who was so much struck by its possibilities that he was
of opinion that the Design of printing by such plates would in short time be brought to such perfection as would greatly injure if not wholly ruine the business of letter-founding, by wch he then made shift to support a large family.
Accordingly a partnership was formed between Ged, Fenner, and Thomas James. The design, it was alleged, "had at that time all imaginable appearance of Success"; Thomas James, being unable to get any help from his father ("a Clergyman then living upwds of 85 years of age, who had, upon a small Endowmt in Hampshire, brought up a numerous family"), applied to his brother John, an architect at Greenwich, for financial assistance. John James came into the partnership, paying an entrance fee of £100, and, as the invention of stereotype plates was likely to be used with most advantage for the printing of bibles and prayer-books, undertook to apply for a licence to the University of Cambridge—"the only one at that time unemploied."[99]
This application was successful and the lease was granted to Fenner on 23 April, 1731; Fenner's name was used as that of the only member of the partnership who was a stationer, and John James gave a bond for £100.
The plates were at first made in London, at a house in Bartholomew Close, but in the summer of 1732 a house was hired in Cambridge and all the materials and implements moved thither. "For ye better prosecuting the Affair," a certain James Watson was sent to Holland "as well as to hire Men, as to buy Presses" and several Dutchmen were employed in printing the nonpareil bible and the small book of common prayer by the new process.
But the business did not prosper. Ged quarrelled with Fenner and "left the whole business at a stand, Secreting or taking with him several Tools and other things to which he had no Right"[100]; Baskett, the king's printer, filed a Bill in Chancery against Fenner for printing bibles; the injunction was subsequently withdrawn, but meanwhile John James was losing confidence in the scheme and growing anxious about his money; he urged Fenner to "go on with the Cambridge Patent Work in common Type Way by the Assistance of Mr Watson, and have nothing farther to do in the Plate Way." "As far as I can learn," wrote James in another letter (28 Nov. 1732), "the Booksellers all agree that the Prayer-Book that is done will by no means pass. So that to proceed farther in this Way will but run us more and more out of Pocket." Finally, Fenner died in debt in 1734; four specimens of his work in Cambridge have survived: an octavo Book of Common Prayer, Thomas Johnson's Letter to Mr Chandler, John Colbatch's Examination of the marriage treaty of Charles II, and A Collection of Poems, by the Author of A Poem on the Cambridge Ladies.
His widow, Mary Fenner, carried on such business as was left and a bitter controversy, recalling the days of Thomas Buck, arose between her and her deceased husband's partners. The brothers James declared that they were £1000 out of pocket and had received not a penny in return; that Fenner had taken a grossly unfair advantage of the lease being in his name. Mrs Fenner, in reply, maintained that her husband had borne the brunt of many business difficulties alone and that his appeals to his partners for help and co-operation had been neglected.
In their complaints to the Vice-Chancellor Thomas and John James did not mince their words:
I humbly request (writes Thomas) that my Brother and I may be heard; that so the Scene of Iniquity carried on by Mr Fenner and now prosecuted by his Widow may be laid open ... for I do not find the change of Mrs Fenner's Religion has made any alteration in her morals.
As to what Fenner's wife (writes John) (who I fear is of as bad a principle as he was) may alledge, I can only say, she has no other cause of complaint, than that I refused to throw away all I had in ye world, for the Knave her husband to make Ducks and Drakes with.
TITLE-PAGE OF BENTLEY'S BOYLE LECTURES, 1735
The details of the controversy need not be examined here[101], but one short letter from Mrs Fenner to the Vice-Chancellor is worth preserving:
London 19 Jun. 1735
Honrd
Sr
these wates on you to beg the favour you will be so good as to stay three weeaks & then will wate on you, in that time will Do my indaver to See Mr James & if it is possable to bringe him to Some agreament I Rely upon your Goodness till that time & then Shall have an oppertuneyty to inform your worship of my case & will do wat is in my power to make you eassey as to the Deate is oing to the university
I am Sr your
Dutyful Sarvant
Mary Fenner
Only one book bearing the imprint of Mary Fenner (the sixth edition of Bentley's Boyle Lectures, 1735) has been preserved and her association with the university came to an end in 1738. In that year she relinquished her lease and John James agreed to pay £150 in settlement of the university's claim upon the ill-fated partnership.
The chief cause of the failure of the Press to fulfil the high hopes of 1696 appears, in Monk's words,
to have been the want of a permanent committee of management, a measure which, however obvious, was not adopted till many years afterwards. In the meantime, the receipt and disbursement of large sums of money, as well as the necessary negotiations with persons of business, were entrusted to the individuals holding the annual office of Vice-Chancellor, who in many cases possessed no previous acquaintance with the concern; a system which inevitably led to injurious and almost ruinous consequences.
This state of affairs is reflected in the preamble of the grace of 1737:
Cum prelum typographicum in usum et commoditatem Academicam olim destinatum per quadraginta retro annos ita negligenter fuerit administratum, ut Academiam oneraverit sumptu ultra bis mille et trecentas libras....
A Syndicate was accordingly appointed with plenary powers over the Press for three years.
This Syndicate "took the State of the Press into Consideration" purchasing new types, presses and other materials; and "that they might be able to retain good Hands there, by securing them constant Employment, began to print an Impression of the Bible in 12mo."
The further measures taken for the development of the bible trade will be recorded in the next chapter. Here it may be noted that one important modification of the Copyright Act, which had been finally passed in 1710, was made in 1739; in that year a new act repealed the clause which empowered the Vice-Chancellors of the two universities to set and reform the prices of books.
In 1712, 1735, and subsequent years clauses were also included in the acts imposing duties on paper by which, "for the Encouragement of Learning" the University Presses were allowed a "drawback" on paper used "in the printing any Bookes in the Latin Greek Orientall or Northern Languages."[102]