Part 3

Salutem in Christo. I understand that there is now in printing by the printer of that university, a certain book, called Harmonia Confessionum Fidei, in English, translated out of Latin; which book, for some special causes, was here [i.e. in London] rejected, and not allowed to be printed. These are therefore to require you, that presently upon receipt hereof you cause the said book to be stayed from printing any further; and that nothing be don more therein, until you shall receive further direction from me. And whereas there is order taken of late by the lords of the council, that from henceforth no book shall be imprinted either in London or in either of the universities, unless the same shall be allowed and authorized by the bishop of London or my self, I do likewise require you to take special care, that hereafter nothing be imprinted in that university of Cambridge but what shall be authorised accordingly. And so not doubting of your diligent circumspection herein, I commit you to the tuition of Almighty God[20].

As the _Harmony of Confessions_ was duly published in the same year, it would appear that it eventually received the archbishop's approval; Macaulay's view of Whitgift as a "narrow-minded, mean, and tyrannical priest" would certainly have been confirmed had he considered him in the light of his censorship of Cambridge books.

Thomas Thomas's greatest achievement, perhaps, was the compilation and printing of his _Latin Dictionary_ and when the London stationers began to publish editions of this and other Cambridge books, the university made another long protest to the Chancellor, pointing out that it was a "verie hard matter" either for the university to maintain its privilege or for the printer to do any good by his trade and begging of him "to become a meanes to her highnes in this behalf ... to graunt a speciall lycence to this our Universitie."

As the Star Chamber decree of 1586, to which reference has been 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.

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.

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]

(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].