already made, ordained that "none of the printers in Cambridge
or Oxford for the tyme being shal be suffered to have any moe
apprentices then one at one tyme at the most," it is not to be
expected that the output from Thomas's press should be very large.
But we know that before his death at the early age of 35 he printed
at least twenty books[21]. Many of these reflect the theological
controversies of the time as, for instance, _Two Treatises of the
Lord His holie Supper ... written in the French tongue by Yues
Rousseau and Iohn de l'Espine ... translated into English_ ("a
very elegant type, and as carefully printed," according to Herbert)
and _Antonii Sadeelis viri clarissimi vereque Theologi de Rebus
Grauissimis controuersis Disputationes accuratae Theologice et
scholastice Tractatae_, both printed in 1584. In the inventory
of his will it is interesting to note that, with one exception,
Thomas had stock, at the time of his death, of all books printed
by himself; he left, too, 39 Reames of pott paper in the garret
(£8) and 8 skynnes of parchment ruled with read ynck (2_s_ 8_d_).
His serviceable type, consisting of long primer, pica, and brevier
(Roman and Italique), together with some "greeke letter," amounted
to 1445 lb and was valued at 3_d_ a lb. In his "necessaries for
pryntinge" are included "one presse with the furneture" (66_s_
8_d_), "iiijͦͬ payer of chases" (13_s_ 4_d_), "ij great stooles"
(12_d_), "iiijͦͬ gallies" (16_d_) and "the wasshing troufhe"
(12_d_)[22].
* * * * *
But it is on his _Latin Dictionary_ that the fame of Thomas Thomas
chiefly rests. "In hoc opere" he writes on the title-page, "quid
sit praestitum ad superiores _λεξικογραφοὺς_ adjectum, docebit
epistola ad Lectorem" and in the _epistola_ we learn how the work
came into being:
Precibus enim Ludimagistrorum ac studiosorum victus, quibus
accessit etiam amicorum frequens postulatio, ex immenso Lexicorum
pelago nostrum contraxi, quod trivialibus saltem ludis inserviret.
The last words of this same address to the reader show that,
like Johnson's, the dictionary was not compiled "in the soft
obscurities of retirement, or under the shelter of academick
bowers":
Cantebrigiae ex nostris aedibus, carptim inter operarum susurros,
Tertio Nonas Septembres, Anno salutis per Christum Dominum partae,
1587.
In the eleventh edition, printed by Thomas's successor in 1619, the
following tribute is paid to him in the dedication to Francis Bacon:
He was about 30 years ago a famous Printer among your
Cantabrigians; yes something more than a Printer such as we
now are, who understand the Latin that we print no more than
Bellerophon the letters he carried, and who sell in our shops
nothing of our own except the paper _black with the press's
sweat_. But he, a companion of the Stephenses and of the other,
very few, printers of the true kind and best omen, was of opinion
that it was men of learning, thoroughly imbued with academic
studies, who should give themselves to cultivating and rightly
applying that illustrious benefit sent down from heaven and given
to aid mankind and perpetuate the arts. Accordingly what more fit
than that when he had wrought what was worthy of type, he should
himself, needing aid of none, act as midwife to his own progeny.
Thomas's printing-office was in the Regent Walk, immediately
opposite the west door of Great St Mary's; his death is said to
have been hastened by the labours of the dictionary, and in 1588 he
was buried in the churchyard of Great St Mary's.
[Illustration: ORNAMENT USED BY THOMAS THOMAS]
III
FROM JOHN LEGATE TO ROGER DANIEL
No time was lost, after the death of Thomas Thomas, in appointing
a successor, for John Legate was elected by grace of 2 November,
1588, "as he is reported to be skilful in the art of printing
books"; and almost immediately the new printer became involved in
disputes with the Stationers' Company.
The corporate existence of the London Stationers dates back to
1407, but their first charter was granted by Mary in 1557. The
result of this charter of incorporation was that no one, except the
holders of special licences or privileges, could print books for
sale; by the rules of the company a member who wished to print a
book and claim the ownership of it was required to enter its name
in the register of the company. Thus he obtained the only kind of
'copyright' which then existed.
On her accession, Elizabeth confirmed the Stationers' charter, but
shortly afterwards, _Injunctions_ were issued which required all
books to be licensed either by the Queen herself, or six members of
the Privy Council, or the Archbishops, or the Bishop of London, or
the Chancellors of the Universities, or the bishop of the diocese.
It was, however, found to be impossible to enforce such a stringent
regulation and in 1577 we find a number of printing licences
issued to private persons. Thus John Jugge became Her Majesty's
printer of Bibles; to Richard Tothill was given the "printinge of
all kindes _Lawe bookes_"; to John Day the monopoly of the _ABC_
and _Catechism_; to Thomas Marshe "Latin books used in the grammar
schools"; to William Seres "salters, primers and prayer books."
As we have already seen, it was these grants which, in spite of the
confirmation of the university's licence at the beginning of the
reign, effectually stood in the way of the establishment of a press
at Cambridge by John Kingston.
The London Stationers also took alarm and petitioned the Queen. At
first they were merely rebuked for daring to question the royal
prerogative but, "approaching her Majesty a second time more humbly
than before," the Company was granted a monopoly of both printing
and selling psalters, primers, almanacks, _ABC_'s, the little
Catechism, and Nowell's English and Latin Catechism.
Of all such monopolies the university, by the power given to it
in the charter of 1534 to print _omnimodos libros_, had been
made nominally independent, and it was therefore inevitable
that disputes should arise; furthermore, there being as yet no
regularised law of copyright, such disputes were likely to be most
violent when there was competition in the sale, as well as in the
printing, of a text-book.
Thus when John Legate, himself a freeman of the Stationers'
Company, printed an edition of Terence for the use of scholars
in 1589 and sent copies to be sold in London, the Stationers
quickly confiscated them; on their part, the Stationers were at
the same time contemplating another pirated edition of Thomas's
_Dictionary_. The university made its usual, dignified complaint to
Lord Burghley.
Again, in 1591, Legate, who had in that year produced the first
English bible printed at Cambridge, was accused of infringing the
monopoly of Barker and Day, the privileged printers. In their reply
to the charge, the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses whilst
hinting that the doctrine "that the prince by virtue of prerogative
may, by a later grant, either take away or abridge a former" is
not only "against the rule of natural equity" but also "dangerous
to all degrees, opening a way to the overthrow of all patents and
privileges," base their appeal upon an _ad misericordiam_, with a
final reminder of the charter and its ratification; in particular,
they emphasise the plight of the printer himself:
The suit which they [the Stationers] have made unto your lordship
for the stay of our printer until the next term, is so prejudicial
to the poor man, as if they should prevail therein, it could not
but tend to his utter undoing; especially Sturbridge-fair now
drawing near; being the chiefest time wherein he hopeth to reap
greatest fruit of this his travail[23].
Similarly, in 1596, Legate was charged--this time by the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners--with infringing the right of the
Queen's patentees by printing the Grammar and Accidence. The
Vice-Chancellor was required to collect all copies printed at
Cambridge and to take bond with surety in £100 of each of the
university printers not to print either book without leave. Some
months later the Vice-Chancellor reported to the Archbishop that
search had been made "by honest men sworn who said upon their oath
that there were no such books printed here." This is the last we
hear of such disputes for some time, but it is clear that the
university jealously guarded its right of selling, as well as of
printing, books, since in 1592 J. Tidder, of London, was sued in
the Vice-Chancellor's Court for selling books in the Cambridge
market[24].
In the later part of his career Legate became intimately associated
with the London stationers. An entry in the Stationers' Registers
under the date 1 August, 1597, shows that his official position was
then recognised:
WHEREAS John legat hathe printed at Cambridge by Aucthoritie of
the vniuersitie there a booke called the _Reformed Catholike_:
This seid booke is here Registred for his copie so that none of
this Company shall prynt yt from hym. PROVIDED that this entrance
shalbe voyd yf the seid booke be not Aucthorised by the seid
vniuersitie as he saieth it is, vjͩ.[25]
Legate married the daughter of Christopher Barker and became Master
of the Stationers' Company in 1604. He left Cambridge in 1609 and
after that date all books printed by him have _London_ on the
title-page; the title, however, of "printer to the university" he
retained until his death in 1620.
In Cambridge he rented a shop for _5s_ per annum in St Mary's
parish from 1591 to 1609, probably the same house in the Regent
Walk as that in which Thomas had lived, and was the first printer
to use the device _Alma Mater Cantabrigia_ with the motto _Hinc
Lucem et Pocula Sacra_ surrounding it.
In partnership with Legate was John Porter. There is no record
of his appointment, but it is evident that he was one of the
university stationers appointed under the charter. In 1593 we find
him associated with Legate in the prosecution of John Tidder and
several books of 1595 and other dates are described as printed for
him and John Legate[26].
* * * * *
In the Register of the Stationers' Company it is recorded under the
date 26 April, 1589:
Cantrell Legge sonne of Edwarde Legge of Burcham in the Countie of
Norffolk Yoman, hathe put himself apprentize to John Legat Citizen
and Stacioner of London for Eighte yeres from midsomer nexte[27].
This Cantrell Legge was appointed one of the university printers
in 1606 and appears to have issued many books in co-operation with
the Stationers. Later, however, difficulties again arose, for
in 1620 Legge was prosecuted by the company for printing Lily's
_Grammar_. The university vehemently protested to the Archbishop
of Canterbury:
Ferunt enim Londinenses Bibliopolas suum potius emolumentum quam
publicum spectantes, (quae res et naturae legibus et hominum
summe contraria est) monopoliis quibusdam inhiare, ex quo timemus
librorum precia auctum iri, et privilegia nostra imminutum. Nos
igitur hoc metu affecti, ubi sanguis solet in re dubia ad cor
festinare, ita ad Te confugimus primariam partem ecclesiastici
corporis....
and to Lord Chancellor Bacon:
Ecquid permittis Domine?... Aspicis multitudinem Librorum indies
gliscentem, praesertim in Theologia, cujus Libri si alii aliis
(tanquam montes olim) imponerentur, veri simile est, eos illuc quo
cognitio ipsa pertingit ascensuros. Quod si et numerus Scriptorum
intumescat, et pretium, quae abyssus crumenae tantos sumptus
aequabit? Jam vero miserum est, pecuniam retardare illam, cui
naturae spiritum dederit, feracem gloriae, et coeleste ingenium
quasi ad metella damnari. Qui augent precia Librorum, prosunt
vendentibus libros non ementibus, hoc est cessatoribus non
studiosis....[28]
Evidently the high prices charged by the Stationers for books of
which they held, or claimed to hold, a monopoly were the source of
bitter complaints amongst teachers and students and the university
authorities set up a spirited opposition: "As to ye poore printer,"
wrote Dr Gooch, Master of Magdalene, to the Registrary (James
Tabor): "there is no waye but one, the universitie must stand upon
our Charter."[29]
Tabor prepared a list of comparative prices showing that while the
Stationers charged 4_d_ a sheet for Aesop's _Fables_ the Cambridge
printer sold them at 3_d_, that Ovid's _Epistles_ cost 8_d_ a sheet
in London and only 5_d_ in Cambridge and so on[30].
Finally, the university seized the opportunity offered by the King
passing through Royston on 16 December, 1621, to bring the matter
before the supreme tribunal.
Dr Mawe, the Vice-Chancellor, was in London at the time but,
leaving his own business unfinished, he hastened back and with Dr
Warde, Dr Beale, the Registrary, and Legge himself "went to Royston
to deliver a Letter and Petition to the King in ye behalf of ye
Universitye."[31] The King, having heard the complaint against the
Stationers' monopoly of "ye cheife vendible books in the land,"
against their high prices, their bad paper, and their inaccurate
printing, referred the matter to a committee composed of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Lincoln, Lord Maundeville,
and the Lord Chief Justice.
[Illustration: PETITION OF THE UNIVERSITY TO JAMES I, 1621]
This committee, however, by reason of "several and distracted
imployments" had no time to discuss the case and, acting on its
recommendation, the King himself directed that the university
printer might continue to sell his _Grammars_ without the let or
disturbance of any person whomsoever.
But a trade dispute of long standing was not settled, even in the
seventeenth century, by a royal injunction. The leading London
booksellers combined to keep the Cambridge edition of Lily's
_Grammar_ ("though sold at the cheapest price") out of the market
and by intimidation compelled other booksellers to follow their
lead; the university retaliated by a grace of the Senate which
forbade Cambridge booksellers to deal with the hostile London group
and ordered all members of the university "who should desire any
author, of whatsoever language, or any composition of his own, to
be printed, wheresoever he should live in England," to offer his
work to the university printer in the first instance and further,
if he should become a schoolmaster, "to use the books printed in
the university which may be for the profit of his boys, and not
suffer others than those printed in the university in his school,
whilst the same books should be printed and sold here at a moderate
and fair price by the royal authority." That the university
authorities became impatient of the continual disputes both between
Cambridge printers themselves and between the Cambridge printers
and the London stationers is shown by the appointment in 1622 of
a syndicate to examine "what charters orders and decrees have
heretofore been granted and made concerning the government of the
University presses and the printers and the stationers and how they
have been observed and when broken and by whom."[32]
[Illustration: THE REPLY TO THE PETITION]
(With the signatures of James I, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
Bishop of Lincoln, and Lord Maundeville)
The next award of the Privy Council, made on 29 November, 1623,
embodied a compromise: the Cambridge printers were authorised to
comprint with the Stationers all books save bibles, books of common
prayer, grammars, psalters, primers or books of common law; they
were to have one press only and to print only those almanacks of
which the first copy was brought to them. A later order similarly
forbade the printing of prayer-books, "and as to books whereof the
first copy was brought to the University printer, he was to have
the sole printing, as the London printers were to have of all books
whereof the first copy was brought to them."
From the rather wearisome history of this constantly recurring
dispute[33], two main facts seem to emerge: the difficulty, in the
absence of any fixed law, of establishing copyright in a printed
book and the incompatibility of the wide powers conferred on the
university by the charter of 1534 with the Stationers' claim to a
trade monopoly.
A study of the list of books printed between 1588 and 1625 will
show that there was by this time a slow, but steady, output of
Cambridge books. Prominent among them are the works of that
voluminous theologian, William Perkins, "the Learned, pious, and
painfull preacher of God's word in St Andrewes in Cambridge" whose
virtues are celebrated by Fuller in the second book of _The Holy
State_ (1642):
His Sermons were not so plain but that the piously learned did
admire them, nor so learned but that the plain did understand
them.... He would pronounce the word _Damne_ with such an
emphasis as left a doleful Echo in his auditours ears a good
while after. And when Catechist of Christ-Colledge, in expounding
the Commandments, applied them so home, able almost to make his
hearers hearts fall down, and hairs to stand upright.
Perkins's works, dealing with such subjects as _A Direction
for the government of the Tongue_, _Salve for a Sicke man_, _A
Reformed Catholike_, and _The Damned art of witchcraft_, and other
theological matters were collected into three folio volumes.
Thomas's _Latin Dictionary_ was regularly reprinted, reaching its
tenth edition in 1610.
In 1603 there appeared _Threnothriambeuticon. Academiae
Cantabrigiensis ob damnum lucrosum, & infoelicitatem foelicissimam,
luctuosus triumphus_, a symposium of classical expressions of
grief and joy on the death of Elizabeth and the accession of
James I. Amongst the contributors were Phineas Fletcher, Matthew
Wren (afterwards Bishop of Ely) and Dr Stephen Perse. Similar
anthologies of loyalty were published in celebration of the return
of the Prince of Wales from Spain in 1623 and of his accession in
1625, and the practice was continued throughout several reigns; a
poem in Latin hexameters (_In homines nefarios_) was also provoked
by the Gunpowder Plot. Two works of James I were printed at the
Press: _A Princes Looking Glasse_, translated by W. Willymot
(1603), and _A Remonstrance for the Right of Kings_ (1616 and 1619).
In 1610 there appeared the first work of Giles Fletcher: _Christs
Victorie and Triumph in Heaven and Earth over and after death_,
with a dedicatory epistle to Nevile, the Master of Trinity:
My opinion of this Island hath always been, that it is the very
face, and beauty of all Europe, in which both true Religion is
faithfully professed without superstition, and (if on earth) true
Learning sweetly flourishes without ostentation: and what are the
two eyes of this Land, but the two Universities ... and truly I
should forget myself, if I should not call Cambridge the right eye.
In the same year there was printed for David Owen, Fellow of Clare
Hall, a controversial work entitled _Herod and Pilate reconciled_.
This led Ralph Brownrigg (Fellow of Pembroke and afterwards Bishop
of Exeter) to invite Owen to his rooms and to catechise him as to
whether a king breaking fundamental laws might be opposed. The
Vice-Chancellor thereupon summoned Brownrigg to Trinity and after
reminding him that Owen's book had received official sanction to be
printed, suspended him from his degrees both for questioning the
university's privilege of printing and for propounding seditious
questions to Owen. Brownrigg recanted shortly afterwards and was
restored by the Vice-Chancellor, but the incident is interesting,
as showing the jealousy with which the privilege of university
printing was guarded and the limitations imposed upon free speech
even in college rooms.
More serious trouble arose out of the publication of a
controversial work entitled _The Interpreter_ by John Cowell,
Master of Trinity Hall. It was suppressed by royal proclamation in
1610 and all copies were ordered to be brought to the Chancellor or
Vice-Chancellor.
In 1623 Legge printed the first Cambridge book which contained
music--_The Whole Booke of Psalmes ... with apt notes to sing them_.
Upon the methods and costs of printing at this time an interesting
light is thrown by a document of 1622 entitled _A direction to
value most Bookes by the charges of the Printer and Stationer as
paper was sould_[34].
The finest paper is reckoned at 5_s_ 6_d_, the lowest quality at
3_s_ 4_d_ the ream; the former was used for Bibles and Psalms in
8vo, for which the charge of printing and paper is estimated at
13_s_ 4_d_ the ream, the cheaper kind for grammars and school
books, printed for 8_s_ the ream ("though the Londiner giveth but
6_s_ 8_d_ at the most").
Evidently the writer is seeking to show that the London Stationers
were making exorbitant profits on the sheets they bought from the
Cambridge printers, for he goes on:
If upon the first sight of any booke printed in England you desire
to knowe the chardge of the printer for paper and printinge,
Looke in the Alphabett what letter the last sheete beareth, then
reckon to that ... for example take Legg's Grammer, the letter is
O, so there are 14 sheetes in that booke ... if you will allow
them 10_s_ a Reame, that is ¼_d_ the sheete, it is 3½_d_ for the
Grammer in Quires, and now the Stationers sell them for 8_d_ in
Quires and so they get 4½_d_ in every eight pence.
Similarly the Stationers are accused of buying the Psalms at 12_s_,
and selling them at a price equivalent to £1 17_s_ the ream.
Cantrell Legge died in 1625[35]. Thomas Brooke, Esquire Bedell,
had been appointed some time before 1608; he evidently printed in
partnership with Legge, as is shown by the title-page of Perkins's
_Exposition of the Sermon in the Mount_ (1608) and the document
containing his resignation may be assigned to the years between
1621 and 1625[36].
Leonard Greene, admitted a member of the Stationers' Company in
1606, had been appointed by grace of 31 October, 1622. He had a
shop "at the south side of the steple" of Great St Mary's and was
in partnership with Thomas and John Buck; thus on the title-page of
Pietro Sarpi's _History of Italy under Paul_, translated into Latin
by W. Bedell (1626), the three names appear together.
Thomas Buck of Jesus, afterwards Fellow of St Catharine's College
and Esquire Bedell, was one of the most distinguished Cambridge
printers of the seventeenth century. He had many partners, with
most of whom he quarrelled, and he produced many fine books.
Charles I had come to the throne a few months before Buck's
appointment and on the occasion of the new king's proclamation
loyal Cambridge had spent 9_s_ 4_d_ for "a gallon of sacke and 2
gallons of Clarrett," 5_s_ "for sugercakes" and 6_s_ "for a bone
fier that night." Immediately after his accession Charles issued
a`proclamation "to inhibit the sale of Latin books reprinted beyond
the seas, having been first printed in Oxford or Cambridge"--a
further illustration of the evils which arose out of the laxity of
copyright. But a document of much greater importance in the history
of Cambridge printing was the charter granted to the university
in 1628: the King, in an attempt to settle the controversy once
and for all, ratified the grant made by Henry VIII and declared
that the university stationers and printers might print and sell
any books which he or his two predecessors had licensed any
person or body of persons to sell; and, further, that they might
print and sell all books which had been, or should be, allowed
by the Chancellor, "any letters patent, or any prohibition,
restraint, clause, or article, in any letters patent whatsoever,
notwithstanding."
In spite of this, we find an order of the Privy Council in 1629
recognising the right of the university to print bibles which
should contain the liturgy and the psalms, but not to print "these
alone without the bibles"; further, the university's output of
Lily's _Grammar_ was limited to 3000 copies a year and a few years
later the university appears to have surrendered its right to print
bibles, almanacks, and Lily's _Grammar_ for three years in lieu of
an annual payment from the London Stationers.
Meanwhile, Thomas Buck was vigorously extending the activities of
the Cambridge Press. His first partner was Leonard Greene with whom
in 1625 he bought the whole of Cantrell Legge's printing-house from
Legge's executrix[37]; Greene's complaints throw an interesting
light on the difficulties of co-operation between the Cambridge
scholar and the London man of business:
That whereas L. Gr. beinge acquainted with the matter of bookes
and printinge by reason of his trade therein for the space of
thirtie yeeres almost, and Mr Bucke being unexperienced, haveing
lead a students life, the said L. Gr. did hide nothing and
conceale nothing from the said Mr Bucke nor spare any paines
(although to the hindrance of his owne busines divers from this)
whereby the common benefite of the presse might be furthered.