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, vj^d.[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 4d a sheet for Aesop's Fables the Cambridge printer sold them at 3d, that Ovid's Epistles cost 8d a sheet in London and only 5d 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.

i59

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]

i61

(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 5s 6d, the lowest quality at 3s 4d the ream; the former was used for Bibles and Psalms in 8vo, for which the charge of printing and paper is estimated at 13s 4d the ream, the cheaper kind for grammars and school books, printed for 8s the ream ("though the Londiner giveth but 6s 8d 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 10s a Reame, that is ¼d the sheete, it is 3½d for the Grammer in Quires, and now the Stationers sell them for 8d in Quires and so they get 4½d in every eight pence.

Similarly the Stationers are accused of buying the Psalms at 12s, and selling them at a price equivalent to £1 17s 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 9s 4d for "a gallon of sacke and 2 gallons of Clarrett," 5s "for sugercakes" and 6s "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.

That for divers copies the sole printinge whereof the said L. Gr. might have had for his owne profite as he is of the Company of Stationers of London, he hath ever brought to this presse, notwithstandinge he hath but a third part therein (and some of them and the best were his before ever Mr Bucke came into the place), and besides the charge of printinge at Cambridge is deerer then at London.

One of Greene's further complaints was that Buck deserted the old printing-house in Regent Walk ("which Thomas and Legatt had successivelie all their time hired") and took instead a lease of "the Angell," an inn which faced Market Hill on the site now occupied by Messrs Macintosh[38].

For all the time (Greene complained) since the presse went to the Angell his [Thomas Buck's] behaviour was to me not as to a Partner but as to a stranger or servant; when ever we came to debate any matter betweene us if I did not yeeld to him he would put me off in this manner that I came to trouble him; whereas the business concerned me as well as himselfe....

Now last of all he hired a house soe farre from me as possiblie I could not be there in partnership with him.... Beinge thus wearied with uncertainties and havinge noe bonds either for partinge or continueinge whereby I might either get or save, I thought it the safer of two evills to chuse the lesse, although with great losse for the time past and hope for time to come, besides the partinge with the deerest favour of the Universitie priviledge, which I never would have doone till my death, had it not beene for the danger I was in for debt.

Finally, Greene claims "a part in the profite of the presse for the time accordinge to rate knowne by workmen for 1275 Remes printed"[39] as well as his "third part in the Bishops booke, in Almanacks, schoole bookes etc."

How far Greene was able to substantiate his claim before the university is not recorded; he died in October, 1630.

Thomas Buck's other partner was his brother John, appointed in 1625. Though he, like all Thomas's colleagues, afterwards found cause of dispute with him, it is interesting to note how, on Leonard Greene's death, the brothers quickly co-operated to secure the vacant office of printer for another member of the family. The following letter[40] was written by John to Thomas on 24 October, 1630:

Brother Thomas,

I pray returne with all speede to Cambridge. Leonard Greene is dead, there's a patent void and within 14 dayes a third man must be chosen. I pray be not dissartoned att it. For I have the Vice-Chancellor and ten Heads and Presidents sure to us, and they have all (I humbly thank you) promised me faithfully to prick whomsoever you and I shall desire; I think my brother ffrancis would be a fitt man to commend unto you; but if you know it to bring in Mr Barker[41] would prove more advantagious to us, I desire you to intreat him to come downe with you, or any other in London whom you best like of. This in hast. I remitt you to God and rest,

Your very loving brother,

John Buck.

Francis Buck was accordingly elected in 1630, but seems to have taken no active share in the printing business. When he resigned two years later he claimed nothing for his patent and afterwards declared:

I only did beare the name of it to do them [Thomas and John] a pleasure or benefitt; and likewise when I did give it over to Mr Daniel I thought it would be a benefitt to my brothers.

From this it seems clear that the appointment of Roger Daniel as printer on 24 July, 1632 (three days after the resignation of Francis) was in accordance with the plans of the brothers Buck[42].

Another family arrangement, made earlier (31 May) in the same year, was one by which John Buck demised the "benefitt of his patent of Printer to the Universitie for the terme of vii yeares to Thomas Buck, he paieing yearely the summe of lvi^li for the same and John Buck should exercise his brother Thomas Buck's place of Bedell during the said terme."[43]

With two bedellships and two printer's patents in the family, Thomas evidently felt it better that each brother should specialise in one department.

By his first agreement with Thomas Buck Daniel promised to take

that Capitall messuage and tenement called the Augustine Fryers wherein the said Thomas Buck now dwelleth together with the printing house and all other houses yards orchards closes wayes and all other easements and commodities thereunto belonging. Except ... all that chamber over the parlor commonly called the great chamber together with the green chamber and cole house thereunto adjoyning, as also two studies in the correcting roome[44].

This paragraph has a special interest in that it describes the only one of the early printing-houses of which a pictorial record has been preserved. The sketch here shewn is described by Cole as

The West Prospect of what remains of the Priory of St Austin in Cambridge, late the Dwelling House of Mr Buck, and now the House belonging to the Curator of the Botanic Garden. It was taken Jan. 19, 1770 by Mr Tyson, Fellow of Benet College, from a Chamber Window in that College, and just opposite to it. It is drawn rather too short at the North end[45].

The building was "just behind the East End of St Benedict's Church and Corpus Christi College."

The inventory of the goods, of which Daniel was to enjoy the free use, shows something of a seventeenth century printer's stock-in-trade:

Six printing presses, five copper plates, six bankes, seven great stones, one muller, thirteen frames to set cases on, all the poles for drying of bookes ... twelve candlesticks for the presses, two frames to put cases in, six and fifty paire and an halfe of cases for letters made of mettle and one case for wooden letters, five and twenty chases, twenty gallies, fifty paper and letter bords, two tressell tables, four tables with drawers, two troughs of lead and all the shelves and formes of deal in the wool-house.

Daniel, on his part, agreed to pay an annual rent of £190, to employ but three presses at a time, and to use paper, ink, and letter "very commendable and good so as the University may receive credit and honour thereby."

i73

Like others, Daniel quickly found cause of complaint against Thomas Buck. By the second deed of partnership (1633) he was to receive one-third of the profits, but in the next year protested that Buck had insisted upon impossible conditions.

One of the features of Thomas Buck's career is his close association with the London Stationers. Thus in 1631 he entered into a contract with Edmund Weaver to supply him with certain quantities of books and almanacks for three years. By this agreement Buck tied himself to print only for the Stationers for this period, Weaver "sending paper and paieing London price for the printinge," and Buck being allowed to retain as many books and almanacks as were required for sale in Cambridge. The following summary shows the type of school book most in demand and the number of books supplied during the three years:

Aessop's Fables	12,000
Virgills	3,000
Mantuans	6,000
Castalians Dialogues	4,250
Apthonius	2,000
Pueriles Sententiae	18,000
" Confabulationes	6,000
Ludovic vir. Dialog.	3,000
Epitome Colloquiorum Ovid, Epistles	3,000
Stuvenius Epist.	3,000
Ovid, Tristia	3,000
Corderius	3,000
Almanacks	1,560

For Buck's business the arrangement was no doubt a profitable one, but the Cambridge stationers complained that, when they wanted school books printed at the Press, either they could not have them "because alreadie they were sent up to London," or else they were obliged to pay the high prices demanded by the London Stationers[46].

At the time of the agreement with Weaver, Daniel had evidently been acting for Buck in London, but after three years' experience of partnership with Buck he had begun to look at the matter in a new light.

In 1635 he presented a petition to the Vice-Chancellor in which Buck is attacked as a grasping monopolist:

At y^e petitioner's first entrance to be printer to the University, Mr Thomas Buck tyed him by covenants and bonds of a thousand pounds to performe and keep such Covenants as he had formerly made with the Stationers of London ... it will appeare that the University Presse is servant to the said Stationers and the University and commonwealth deprived of that benefit which is intended by our Priviledge....

He perceiving that I was able to goe on with y^e printing Psalmes without his helpe, and that I was forward and willing to print other bookes which would more honour the Universitie Presse then those schoole books which he had agreed to print for y^e Londoners....

He is continually defaming chyding and brawling with your petitioner, often fighting with, beating, threatning and vexing your petitioners servants, so your petitioner and they are weary of their lives[47].

Daniel then proceeds to show that it will be more honourable for the university, more beneficial to scholars, and more agreeable to the charter to have two or three printing-houses instead of one:

For so the books printed in the University shall not be monopolised but freely vented.

The parting of the Printers will beget in them a laudable emulation which of them shall deserve best....

Whereas it is a common complaint that when schollars have taken great paines in writing usefull bookes, they cannot get them printed but at their own great charges. It is probable that there will be cause of the like complaint here in Cambridge, if there be but one printing house, which likewise will be taken away, for it is likely if one Printer will not, another will[48].

The result of this petition is not recorded; but it certainly did not lead to the dissolution of the partnership, for in 1639 we find an elaborate agreement[49] between Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel on the one side and six London stationers (Robert Mead, John Parker, Miles Flesher[50], Robert Young, Edward Brewster, John Legate[51]) relating to the sale of bibles, service books, singing psalms, grammars and other school books. The large stock of these books printed at Cambridge was bought by the London syndicate, who guaranteed to leave sufficient copies in Cambridge to supply the needs of the university, whilst Buck and Daniel undertook not to print further copies of the books for the space of ten years without the consent of the Stationers.

From the preamble of this agreement it also appears that John Buck had assigned his rights as printer to Roger Daniel.

However difficult, not to say tyrannical, Thomas Buck's dealings with his various partners, and however questionable some of his dealings with the Stationers may have been, his name stands high in the annals of Cambridge typography. The first Cambridge edition of the Authorised Version was printed by him in 1629, a fine book with an elaborately engraved title-page. In the next year two quarto editions were produced, and these were followed by several other editions during the next ten years. Buck and Daniel were so well satisfied with their folio of 1638 ("perhaps the finest bible ever printed at Cambridge") that they posted a notice on the door of Great St Mary's Church challenging scholars to find a mistake in it, and offering a free bible to anyone who should do so.

"The Bible," says a document of about 1655, "was never better printed than by Mr Buck and Mr Daniel."[52]

It was about this time, too, that the encouragement of the study of Arabic in the university began. In 1626 Archbishop Usher had endeavoured to obtain from Leyden matrices of Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Samaritan letters for the use of the University Press, but was forestalled by the Elzevirs[53].

i79

Thomas Adams (afterwards Sir Thomas Adams, Bart., Lord Mayor of London) had in 1632founded a professorship of Arabic and some years later (probably in 1645) the Senate decreed, that having established a press and such other apparatus as should be required, they should devote their attention to the production of books in Arabic, in order that the fruits of the Adams benefaction should be handed down to posterity and diffused throughout the world[54]. There is, however, no record of Arabic printing at Cambridge until a much later date[55].

Buck was a scholar as well as a printer[56]; the edition of Poetae Graeci Minores printed by him in 1635, which has a title-page engraved by William Marshall, was described, though with some exaggeration, as "the most elegant book of the Cantabrigian press delivered to the public"; Mede's Clavis Apocalyptica (second edition, 1632) is also notable for its fine Hebrew type.

Apart from the typographical interest of the work of Thomas Buck and his partners, there are some famous names amongst the authors whose works they printed. Those of Giles and Phineas Fletcher, the two brothers who "head the line of poets who were divines of the English church," are prominent in the list. The former's Christ's Victorie was reprinted in 1632 and 1640 and under the name of Phineas (who, like his brother, had contributed to Sorrowes Joy in 1603) we find Locustae, vel pietas jesuitica (1627), the poem which is said to have contributed to the inspiration of Paradise Lost; and, in 1633, Sylva Poetica, The Purple Island, and Elisa or An Elegie Upon the Unripe Decease of Sir Antonie Irby.

A more famous work of the period is that of George Herbert, Public Orator from 1619 to 1627, during which time, according to Walton, he managed the office "with as becoming and grave a gaiety, as any had ever before or since his time; for he had acquired great learning, and was blessed with a high fancy, a civil and sharp wit, and with a natural elegance, both in his behaviour, his tongue, and his pen." From his deathbed he sent a manuscript to "his dear brother Ferrar," describing it as "a picture of the many spiritual conflicts that have passed betwixt God and my soul, before I could subject mine to the will of Jesus my Master; in whose service I have now found perfect freedom."

This was the manuscript of The Temple, published in 1633, and reprinted many times in the following ten years.

Another of the 'sacred poets' whose works were printed at Cambridge at this time is Richard Crashaw (Epigrammatum Sacrorum Liber, 1634).

John Donne is represented by a volume of Six Sermons upon severall occasions, preached before the King, and elsewhere, posthumously published in 1634; and Thomas Fuller, that loyal son and historian of the university, by The Historie of the Holie Warre (1639).

i83

But the most famous name of all is that of John Milton, for at Cambridge was printed the first edition of Lycidas. It was included in the Obsequies to the memorie of Mr Edward King (1638)[57] and the University Library copy contains corrections in Milton's own hand.

These few titles, selected from the long list of Cambridge books of this period, are themselves a justification of Bowes's conclusion that "the press was in a condition of great activity during the period that Buck was connected with it."

Buck, moreover, was active in university and college affairs as well as at the Press; he was Esquire Bedell from 1624 to 1670[58] and was a benefactor both to Jesus and St Catharine's Colleges[59].

Roger Daniel, as has been seen above, represented the business side of the partnership and kept a bookshop in London. Thus on the title-page of a bible of 1638 we read: "to be sold by Roger Daniel at the Angell in Lumber Street, London." Though Buck retained his interest in the Press until 1668, Daniel's name appears by itself on title-pages printed between 1640 and 1650.

i85

Among the authors may be noted the names of some of the Cambridge Platonists: Henry More's ????d?a Platonica was printed in 1642, his Democritus Platonissans in 1646 and his Philosophicall Poems (second edition) in 1647; Ralph Cudworth's Sermon before the House of Commons was printed in the same year.

Thomas Fuller's most popular work, The Holy State, appeared in 1642—a small folio with an engraved title-page on which the portrait of Charles I is characteristically flanked by the emblematic figures of Truth and Justice. A second edition of the book appeared in 1648. Other noteworthy books are the Sermons of Lancelot Andrewes (1641), the second edition of Francis Quarles's Emblemes (1643), Bede's Historiae Ecclesiasticae Gentis Anglorum Libri V (1643) and William Harvey's Exercitatio Anatomica de Circulatione Sanguinis (1649). A less important medical tract is Warme Beere (1641), a treatise in which are expounded "many reasons that Beere so qualified is farre more wholesome then that which is drunke cold." In 1645 Daniel printed Tachygraphy, a work which claimed to be "the most exact and compendious methode of short and swift writing that hath ever yet been published by any." It was compiled by Thomas Shelton, "Authour and Professour of the said Art," and a special interest is attached to the book in that the principles of shorthand expounded in it were those adopted by Pepys in the writing of his Diary.

It was, however, the printing of political tracts that brought Daniel's name into greatest prominence. In 1642, "by his Majesties speciall command," he printed His Majesties answer to the Declaration of both Houses of Parliament, Concerning the Commission of Array and on 23 August of the same year he was summoned to appear before the House of Commons, which enjoined him "not to print anything concerning the Proceedings of Parliament, without the Consent or Order of one or both Houses of Parliament." A few months later the House of Commons again took offence at a book printed at Cambridge (The Resolving of Conscience, by Henry Fern); this time Daniel was arrested, but was subsequently released on bail, after Dr Holdsworth, the Vice-Chancellor, had been specially summoned to the House of Commons, under the escort of Captain Cromwell.

By an ordinance of 1649 Parliament recognised the universities (together with London, York, and Finsbury) as privileged printing-places; Daniel's printing patent, however, was cancelled, on the ground of neglect, in 1650.

He continued to print books in London after that date, but the petition for his restoration to the position of university printer in 1660 does not seem to have borne fruit.

i87

---