A HISTORY OF THE
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1521-1921

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
C. F. CLAY, Manager
LONDON: FETTER LANE, E.C. 4

NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN CO.

TORONTO: THE MACMILLAN CO. OF
CANADA, Ltd.
TOKYO: MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[i4]

THE PITT PRESS BUILDING

A HISTORY OF THE
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
PRESS

1521-1921

BY

S. C. ROBERTS, M.A.

SOMETIME SCHOLAR OF
PEMBROKE COLLEGE

CAMBRIDGE

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1921

PREFACE

As may be inferred from the title-page, this book has been written to mark the four hundredth anniversary of Cambridge printing.

Of the original authorities used in its compilation the most valuable has been the large collection of documents relating to the Press which are preserved in the Registry of the University. Access to this collection has enabled me to glean some fresh information concerning the careers of the university printers and a series of accounts and vouchers from 1697 to 1742 has brought to light several new titles of books printed at Cambridge during that period.

The making of this book, however, would not have been feasible, in the limited time at my disposal, had I not been free to use the work of the pioneers, from Christopher Wordsworth and Henry Bradshaw onwards, and the chief items of this work are recorded in the short bibliography on page xiii.

In addition, my personal obligations are many: Mr Francis Jenkinson, University Librarian, Mr Charles Sayle, Mr A. T. Bartholomew, and many other members of the Library staff have helped me ungrudgingly, both in putting their own special knowledge at my command and in guiding me to the proper authorities; the Registrary (Dr J. N. Keynes) and his staff have similarly given me ready access to the documents in their charge; Mr J. B. Peace, University Printer, provided me with the picture which serves as frontispiece and with the revised plan of the Press buildings; Mr G. J. Gray corrected several of my statements in proof and gave me the benefit of his own latest researches into the career of John Siberch before they were published; to many other friends (including my colleagues in the several departments of the Press) I am indebted for items of advice and help too many to be enumerated.

I have also to thank the Master of Trinity College for leave to reproduce the portrait of Bentley; Messrs Bowes and Bowes for the blocks used on pp. 6 and 14; and the Cambridge Antiquarian Society for leave to make use of the papers on Cambridge printing published in their Proceedings.

Those who are familiar with the Catalogue of Cambridge Books and the Biographical Notes on Cambridge Printers will appreciate the measure of my debt to the work of the late Robert Bowes. When, in 1913, I sent him a copy of a magazine article on the University Press, he wrote:

I am by it carried back to my pleasant work of 25 to 30 years ago, and I am very glad in my 78th year to see younger men interesting themselves in the subject.

Time has robbed me of the pleasure of offering him a work which owes much to his research.

Finally, it should be stated that the book attempts to trace the general history of Cambridge printing and not to enter into the finer points of bibliographical technique. Similarly, only the briefest sketch is given of the growth of Cambridge publishing in the last 50 years; to do more would be to cross the border-line between history and advertisement. In Appendix II I have carried on the work begun by Mr Jenkinson for another 100 years. The list of books, though it may claim some new titles, makes no pretension to finality; it is rather a starting-point for the professed bibliographer.

S. C. R.

1 August 1921.

CONTENTS

ILLUSTRATIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cole MSS. British Museum.
Minute Books of the Syndics of the Press.
Registry MSS. relating to the Press.
University Press Accounts.

Aldis, H. G. The Book-Trade, 1557-1625 (Camb. Hist. of Eng. Lit. IV). Cambridge, 1909.

Allen, P. S. Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi. 3 vols. Oxford, 1906-13.

Arber, E. A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554-1640. 5 vols. Privately printed, 1875-94.

Bartholomew, A. T., Catalogue of Cambridge Books bequeathed to the University by J. W. Clark. Cambridge, 1912.

Bartholomew, A. T., and Clark, J. W., Richard Bentley, D.D. A Bibliography. Cambridge, 1908.

Bowes, R. and Gray, G. J. John Siberch: bibliographical notes, 1886-1905. Cambridge, 1906.

Bradshaw, H. Henrici Bulloci Oratio. With bibliographical introduction. Cambridge, 1886.

Cambridge Historical Register to 1910. Ed. J. R. Tanner. Cambridge, 1917.

Carter, E. History of the University of Cambridge. London, 1753.

Cooper, C. H. Annals of Cambridge. 5 vols. Cambridge, 1842-1908.

Cooper, C. H. Athenae Cantabrigienses. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1858-1913.

Cranage, D. H. S. and Stokes, H. P. The Augustinian Friary in Cambridge and the History of its Site (C.A.S. Proc. XXII. 53). Cambridge, 1921.

Darlow, T. H. and Moule, H. F. Historical Catalogue of the printed editions of Holy Scripture. 4 vols. London, 1903-11.

Duff, E. G. The English Provincial Printers, Stationers and Bookbinders to 1557. Cambridge, 1912.

Dyer, G. Privileges of the University of Cambridge. London, 1824.

Ged, W. Biographical Memoirs of. London, 1781, and Newcastle, 1819.

Gray, G. J. and Palmer, W. M. Abstracts from the Wills of Printers, Binders, and Stationers of Cambridge, 1504-1699. London, 1915.

Hart, H. Charles, Earl Stanhope and the Oxford University Press (Collectanea III). Oxford, 1896.

Herbert, W. Typographical antiquities. Begun by Joseph Ames. 3 vols. London, 1785-90.

Loftie, W. J. A Century of Bibles. London, 1872.

Monk, J. H. The Life of Richard Bentley, D.D. London, 1830.

Mullinger, J. B. The University of Cambridge. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1873-1911.

Newth, S. On Bible Revision. London, 1881.

Nichols, J. Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century. 6 vols. London, 1812.

Pollard, A. W. Fine Books. London, 1912.

Reed, T. B. A history of the old English letter foundries. London, 1887.

Roberts, W. The Earlier History of English Bookselling. London, 1889.

Sayle, C. E. Early English printed books in the University Library, Cambridge (1475-1640). 4 vols. Cambridge, 1900-7.

Straus, R. and Dent, R. K. John Baskerville. London, 1907.

Willis, R. and Clark, J. W. Architectural History of the University of Cambridge. 4 vols. Cambridge, 1886.

I

JOHN SIBERCH

Excursions into the realm of legend have long served as the traditional method of approach of the academic historian to his subject. True, the story of the foundation of the university of Cambridge by "one Cantaber, a Spaniard, about 370 years before Christ," or, as Fisher described him in 1506, "Cantaber, a king of the East Saxons, who had been educated at Athens," is now definitely rejected as unhistorical; but it was only in 1914 that the name of Sigebert, King of the East Angles, was removed from the list of royal benefactors[1].

University printing, like the university itself, has its Apocrypha. Edmund Carter, writing in 1753, includes a short section on University Printers:

Printing had not been long used in England before it was brought hither, but by whom it is difficult to ascertain, tho' it may be supposed that Caxton, (who is said to be the first that brought this curious art into England, and was a Cambridgeshire Man, born at Caxton in that County, from which he takes his Name) might Erect a Press at Cambridge, as well as at Westminster, under the care of one of his Servants; (for it is Conjectured, he brought several from Germany with him). The first Book we find an Account of, that was Printed here, is a Piece of Rhetoric, by one Gull. de Saona, a Minorite; Printed at Cambridge 1478; given by Archbp. Parker to Bennet College Library. It is in Folio, the Pages not Numbered, and without ketch Word, or Signatures.

Alas for Carter's pious suppositions! Caxton, according to his own testimony, was born in Kent and Cambridge can claim only to be the place of compilation of the Rhetorica; the phrase at the end of the book, Compilata in Universitate Cantabrigiae, no doubt led to the entry being made in the catalogue in the form Rhetorica nova, impressa Cantab, fo. 1478, and the mistake persisted for two centuries.

Nor is Oxford without a controversial prologue to the story of its printing. In the first Oxford book the date appears in the colophon as mcccclxviii and for long it was sought to establish the claim that Oxford printing preceded Caxton. But though it has been contended that the ground for the claim "has not yet entirely slipped away," it is now generally accepted by bibliographers that the printer omitted an x from the date, which should in fact be mcccclxxviii.

"The oldest of all inter-university sports," said Maitland, "was a lying match."

To return to Cambridge, we are on firmer, though not very spacious, ground, when we come to the name of John Siberch, the first Cambridge printer. "True it is," says Thomas Fuller, "it was a great while before Cambridge could find out the right knack of printing, and therefore they preferred to employ Londoners therein ... but one Sibert, University Printer, improved that mystery to good perfection."

Of the life of Siberch, either at Cambridge or elsewhere, we know little. He was the friend of several great humanists of the period, including Erasmus; he was in Louvain, evidently, in 1518. "I was surprised," writes Erasmus to John Caesarius on 5 April of that year, "that John Siberch came here without your letter."

The earliest appearance of his name on a title-page is in 1520, when Richard Croke's Introductiones in rudimenta Graeca was printed at Cologne "expensis providi viri domini Ioannis Laer de Siborch."[2] His full name, then (of which there are many forms), is John Lair and his place of origin Siegburg, a small town south-west of Cologne.

A discovery made by Mr Gordon Duff in the Westminster Abbey Library in 1889 makes it almost certain that Siberch was already in England when Croke's book was printed; for in a copy of a book bound by Siberch there was found, besides two printed fragments and a letter from Petrus Kaetz[3], a portion of the manuscript of the Rudimenta Graeca. It seems clear, therefore, that Siberch was in England when proofs and 'copy' of the work were sent to him.

Richard Croke (afterwards the first Public Orator) was at this time the enthusiastic leader of Greek studies in Cambridge. He had earned fame as a teacher at Cologne, Louvain, Leipzig, and Dresden and, in succession to his friend Erasmus, was appointed Reader in Greek to the university in 1519. His text-book could not be printed in England, because there was as yet no Greek fount owned by an English printer; and it is quite probable, as Mr Duff suggests, that John Siberch, himself settled in Cambridge, had undertaken to have Croke's work printed by a friend, possibly by his old master, in Cologne. Possibly, too, Croke may have previously met Siberch in Germany and, with Erasmus, have been responsible for his coming to Cambridge. This, of course, is conjectural, but of the friendship between Erasmus and Siberch there is no doubt, since, in a letter from Erasmus to Dr Robert Aldrich, written on Christmas Day 1525, there is a message sent to "veteres sodales Phaunum, Omfridum, Vachanum, Gerardum, et Joannem Siburgum, bibliopolas."

From this it would naturally be inferred that Siberch was still in Cambridge in 1525, but his name does not appear in the Subsidy Roll of 1523-24 and it is probable, therefore, that, unknown to Erasmus, he left in the early part of 1523[4].

Siberch, then, probably lived in Cambridge from 1520 to 1523, a period during which the labours of the first Cambridge humanists were beginning to bear fruit. In 1497, the Lady Margaret, mother of Henry VII, had appointed as her confessor John Fisher, Master of Michaelhouse; and "to the wealth and liberality of the one," in Mullinger's words, "and the enlightened zeal and liberality of the other the university is chiefly indebted for that new life and prosperity which soon after began to be perceptible in its history."

To the Lady Margaret were due the foundation of St John's and Christ's Colleges and the Professorship and Preachership which bear her name; Fisher, afterwards Bishop of Rochester and President of Queens' College, was the first holder of the Divinity chair and it was at his invitation that Erasmus, who had taken a degree in divinity in Cambridge in 1506, came to live, in 1509 or 1510, in the turret-chamber of Queens'. Though it is, perhaps, as the first teacher of Greek (himself for the most part self-taught and not, as Gibbon says, the importer of Greek from Oxford) that Erasmus is most famous, the result of his first lectures was disappointing:

So far I have lectured on the grammar of Chrysoloras, but to few hearers; perhaps I shall have a larger audience when I begin the grammar of Theodorus, perhaps I shall take up a theological lectureship.

This last hope was fulfilled in 1511, when Erasmus was elected to the Lady Margaret's professorship of divinity. His letters are full of petulant complaints which may be taken as seriously as those of Gray in later years. He sees no hope of lecture-fees since his conscience will not let him rob 'naked men,' and only by touting does it appear possible to get pupils. The college beer is bad and the townsmen boorish. So he retires to his garret in Queens' and applies himself to his work on the New Testament (Novum Instrumentum) and his edition of St Jerome, both of which were to play an important part in preparing the way for the Reformation in England.

When weary of study, "for lacke of better exercise he would take his horse and ryde about the Market Hill." But he has words of praise for the Cambridge school of theology:

In the University of Cambridge instead of sophistical arguments, their theologians debate in a sober, sensible manner and depart wiser and better men.

[i24]

PART OF HAMOND'S PLAN OF CAMBRIDGE, 1592

It was to this Cambridge and, probably, to this patron in Cambridge that John Siberch came. The single reference to his place of residence and to his position in the university occurs in the Annals of Dr Caius:

The space (he writes) between the gate of humility and the gate of Virtue was formerly occupied by a tenement called the King's Arms. This was once the residence of John Sibert, alias Siberch, the University Printer, who printed some books of John Lydgate and others, and of Erasmus when he was residing at Cambridge.

The "tenement called the King's Arms" explains the use by Siberch of the royal arms as a printer's device; but although cum gratia et privilegio appears on the title-page of several books printed by him, there is no official confirmation of his having held the office of university printer[5].

There are entries, however, in Grace Books and in the Audit Book of the university which show that in 1520 or 1521 the university advanced to him the sum of twenty pounds:

Obligatur doctor Manfeld loco et vice magistri Norres pro summa pecunie quam recepit Johannes bibliopola ab universitate[6].

Probably, Mr Duff suggests, this sum of money—a larger amount than a university stationer's fee—may have been advanced with a view to helping Siberch in the establishment of a press.

The debt is entered in the proctors' accounts until the year 1524-25 and in Grace Book B it is recorded under the date 1538-9 that John Law, an alien priest, with Drs Ridley, Bulloke, Wakefield, and Maundefelde owed £20 sterling to the university, for which they had given a bond with their signature and seals; reference is made to this bond in the Audit Book under the dates 1546, 1549, and 1553. From the description of Siberch as "presbiter alienigena" Mr Duff infers that Siberch eventually forsook printing for the Church.

Such are the fragmentary references that have survived concerning the career of the first Cambridge printer.

Fortunately, however, eight complete specimens of his book-printing have been preserved:

i The first Cambridge book (of which a page is shown in facsimile) reflects the atmosphere of the time. It is the Oratio delivered by Henry Bullock, d.d., Fellow of Queens' College and afterwards Vice-Chancellor, in honour of the visit of Cardinal Wolsey to the university in the autumn of 1520. The 'frequentissimus cetus' before whom the oration was given included the imperial ambassadors and several bishops.

The cardinal was lodged at Queens' College and both town and university delighted to honour him, as may be seen from the following items from the proctors' accounts:

To the Vicechancellor for expences in going round the town with the mayor, to cleanse the streets against the coming of the Cardinal, 2s 2d.

Gifts to the Cardinal: for wine £3 6s 8d; for carrying the same to Queens coll. 12d; for 2 oxen, £3 7s 8d; for 6 swans, 28s 8d; for 6 great pikes, 33s 4d; for 6 shell fish, 4s 4d; for a river fish called a breme, 6s 8d.

For repairing the streets on the Cardinal's coming, 13d.

To 2 scholars who carried an altar on the coming of the Cardinal, 4d.

[i27]

A PAGE FROM HENRICI BULLOCI ORATIO, THE FIRST CAMBRIDGE BOOK

The style of the oration is even more lavish than the ceremonial preparations. "Scarcely from the obsequious senates of Tiberius and Domitian did the incense of flattery rise in denser volume or in coarser fumes."[7]

Bradshaw pointed out that the type used for the printing of the Oratio appears to be quite new. Many of the lines are wavy and irregular and there are no woodcut initials or ornaments of any kind. The second imprint, at the end of the book, runs: Impressa est haec oratiūcula Cantabrigiae, per me Ioannem Siberch, post natum saluatorem, Millesimo quingentesimo uicesimoprimo. Mense Februario. A second impression was printed a few months later and issued with Siberch's third book.

Four libraries possess copies: the British Museum; the Bodleian Library; Lambeth Palace; and Archbishop Marsh's Library, St Patrick's, Dublin. Cambridge unfortunately has no copy.

ii The second Cambridge book is the rarest of all those printed by Siberch, only one copy (John Selden's, bequeathed to the Bodleian Library in 1659) having been preserved.

It contains a letter addressed by a 'certain faithful Christian' to 'all Christians' and a sermon of Augustine De miseria ac brevitate vitae, of which the full title may be read in the facsimile. In addition to its uniqueness, the book has a further interest in that the Greek motto on the title-page was printed from the first genuine moveable Greek type used in England. Woodcuts depicting scenes from the Last Judgment and probably copied from a German Book of Hours are also used on the title-page.

[i29]

TITLE-PAGE OF THE SECOND CAMBRIDGE BOOK

iii The next book contains Lucian περὶ δωδιψάδων translated by Henry Bullock, together with a reissue of the Oratio. On the title-page there appears for the first time the elaborate border with the Arma Regia (the sign of the house in which Siberch lived) at the foot. No other ornament is used, but Greek type appears on the title-page, in the dedication, and at the end of the book.

Four copies are known: two in the British Museum, one in St John's College, Cambridge, and one at Lambeth Palace.

iv The fourth book, Archbishop Baldwin's Sermo de altaris sacramento (1521), contains for the first time a woodcut initial and the Arma Regia in another form. The book is dedicated to Nicholas West, Bishop of Ely, and in the dedication Siberch claims to be the first printer to use Greek type in England—"Ioannes Siberch primus utriusque linguae in Anglia impressor."

Nine copies have survived: two in the Bodleian, two in the University Library, Cambridge, one in Trinity College, Cambridge, one in Magdalene College, Cambridge, one in All Souls' College, Oxford, one in Lincoln and one in Peterborough Cathedral Library[8].

v The next book has many points of interest. In the first place, it is by the printer's friend, Erasmus, and its title gives a brief survey of the manner of its composition: Libellus de Conscribendis epistolis, Autore D. Erasmo, opus olim ab eodem cœptum, sed prima manu, mox expoliri cœptum, sed intermissum, Nunc primum prodit in lucem.... mdxxi.

Secondly, it is the first book of any size undertaken by Siberch. "Ignosces," he pleads, "candide lector iam primum experienti mihi." Further, the phrase Cum gratia et privilegio is now used on the title-page for the first time; for this leave had probably been obtained through Bishop Fisher, in a dedication to whom the printer calls himself 'Cantabrigiensis typographus.'

Four copies are known: two in the British Museum, one in St John's College, Cambridge, and one in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; the last has an additional interest in that it was bound by Nicholas Speryng.

vi The sixth of the books printed by Siberch is the commonest. It is a translation of Galen by Thomas Linacre: Caleni Pergamensis de Temperamentis, et de inaequali intemperie libri tres Thoma Linacro Anglo interprete.

It is described on the title-page, which has the same border-device as iii, as "opus non medicis modo, sed et philosophis oppido quam necessarium"; it is dedicated to Pope Leo X and printed "cum gratia et privilegio."

[i34]

TITLE-PAGE OF FISHER'S SERMON

The existing copies of the book are in two states: a copy in the first state was found by the late Mr Robert Bowes in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, containing only the De Temperamentis and having on the last leaf but one a woodcut of the Adoration of the Shepherds. The copy in the Royal College of Physicians consists of this first issue with the second essay added. The remaining ten copies—University Library, Cambridge (2); Bodleian Library (2); British Museum; Trinity College, Cambridge; All Souls' College, Oxford; Hunterian Museum, Glasgow; the Duke of Devonshire; Mr Bowes—are in the second state, containing both the De Temperamentis and the De inaequali intemperie, the last two leaves of the former essay as they appear in the first state being cancelled.

VII The full title of the seventh Cambridge book may be read in the facsimile here shown. It is a Latin translation of the sermon delivered in London by Fisher when Luther's books were publicly burned.

Siberch has now discarded his ornamental title-border, but at the end of the book there appears a new device, embodying his trade-mark and initials. The book was printed late in 1521 and probably issued early in the January of the next year.

Five copies are known: two in the Bodleian Library; one in the University Library, Cambridge; one in Magdalene College, Cambridge; and one in the John Rylands Library, Manchester.

VIII The last of the eight books printed by Siberch of which complete copies survive is Papyrii Gemini Eleatis Hermathena, seu De Eloquentiae Victoria, printed on the 8th December, 1522. There are three different states of the title-page and six complete copies are known: University Library, Cambridge; British Museum; St John's College, Oxford; Archbishop Marsh's Library, St Patrick's, Dublin; Duke of Devonshire; Lincoln Cathedral Library.

To these eight books must be added the De octo partium orationis constructione libellus of Lily and Erasmus, two leaves of which were found in the book bound by Siberch which Mr Duff discovered at Westminster. This libellus, originally written by William Lily and revised, at Colet's suggestion, by Erasmus, was a popular school book of the period.

It was in the binding of the same book that the letter from Petrus Kaetz, a Dutch printer, was also found. This letter has many points of interest. Kaetz sends Siberch "25 prognostications and 3 New Testaments small," as well as a parcel to be delivered to Niclas [Speryng] and we may fittingly conclude our notice of Siberch with the tribute of a contemporary to his prospects as a printer:

Know, Jan Siborch (writes Petrus Kaetz) that I have received your letter as [well as specimens] of your type, and it is very good; if you can otherwise ... and conduct yourself well, then you will get enough to print.

(Translation by Dr Hessels, Jenkinson, C.A.S. VIII, 186.)

[i36]

TRADE-MARK OF JOHN SIBERCH

II

THE CHARTER—THOMAS THOMAS AND THE STATIONERS

Though it may not be clear to what extent John Siberch was officially recognised as printer to the university, it is evident that no successor to him was immediately appointed. University stationers and bookbinders, however, had been for some time established in a privileged position. As early as 1276 we find a reference to the "writers, illuminators, and stationers, who serve the scholars only," and in a note on this phrase Fuller defines the stationarii as "publicly avouching the sale of staple-books in standing shops (whence they have their names) as opposite to such circumforanean pedlers (ancestors to our modern Mercuries and hawkers) which secretly vend prohibited books."

In 1350 John Hardy, procurator of the Corpus Christi Gild, is described as "stationarius of the University" and we learn something of the stationers' duties from the prohibition by Convocation in 1408 of the use in schools of "any book or tract compiled by John Wiclif, or any one else in his time or since or to be compiled thereafter" unless first examined by the universities and afterwards approved by the Archbishop. After the book had been finally sanctioned, it was to be delivered "in the name and by the authority of the University to the stationers to be copied; and a faithful collation being made, the original should be deposited in the chest of either University, there to remain for ever."

In his edition of Grace Book A (1454-88) Sir Stanley Leathes summarises the position of the Stationaries as follows:

They were not students, nor were they exactly servants or tradesmen. They were the official agents of the University for the sale of pledges, and official valuers of manuscripts and other valuables offered as security. They seem to have received an occasional fee from the Chest.... Like the servants and tradesmen dependent on the University they were under the University jurisdiction.

Many of the stationers were binders as well and the keeping of the university chest was included in their duties; from the will of Petrus Breynans (c. 1504) it also appears that they were provided by the university with a distinctive gown[9].

At the beginning of the sixteenth century, we find the stationers involved in one of the many disputes between university and town, damaging alike to study and to business. In 1502 both parties besought the "amicable interference" of the Lady Margaret, who counselled arbitration; the result was an "indenture of covenant" executed by university and town "pursuant to the award of Sir Thomas Frowycke and the other arbitrators." One clause in the indenture runs:

Item, yt ys covenanted, accorded, and agreed bitwene the said Parties, accordinge to the said Award, that all Bedells of the said Universitie, and all Mancipills, Cooks, Butlers, and Launders of everye Colledge, Hostell, and of other places ordeyned for Scolers, Students, and places of religion in the said Universitie, and all appotycares, Stacioners, Lymners, Schryveners, Parchment-makers, Boke-bynders, Phisitions, Surgeons, and Barbers in the sayd Universitie ... shall be reputed and taken as Common Ministers and Servants of the said Universitie, as longe as they shall use eny such occupacion, and shall have and enjoye lyke privilege as a Scolers Servant of the same Universitie shall have and enjoye....[10]

In the list at the end of the award containing the names of those privileged by the university, the last entry is "Garreit Stacioner.", This "Garreit" is the stationer and binder generally known as Garrett Godfrey. When he first began business in Cambridge is not known, but more than fifty specimens of his binding, dating from 1499 to 1535, have survived. We know also that he was churchwarden of Great St Mary's in 1516 and again in 1521 and that he died in 1539[11].

Erasmus refers to him in 1516 as his "old host, Garrett the bookseller" (which suggests that he stayed in his house during his first visit to Cambridge), and in 1525 sends a message, already quoted, to Garrett and other booksellers.

Another stationer and bookbinder of the period is Nicholas Spierinck (Speryng), whose name first appears in Grace Book B under the date 1505-6. Little is known of him as a stationer. He was a Dutchman by birth and, like Garrett Godfrey, was a friend of Erasmus and a churchwarden of Great St Mary's. His will, of which he appointed Thomas Wendy, the royal physician, as supervisor, shows him to have been a man of property, since he bequeathed to Nycholas Spyrynke, his "sonnes sonne," the "howse of the Crosse Keyes"—a brewery in Magdalene Street[12]; of his work as a binder nearly fifty examples remain.

The third of the Cambridge stationers of this period whom we must consider is Segar Nicholson. He also came from Holland, and, as Mr G. J. Gray remarks, affords an early example of a member of the university engaging in business, being a pensioner of Gonville Hall from 1520 to 1523. His career has more varied features than those of his fellow-stationers.

In 1529 he was charged with holding Protestant views and further with the unlawful possession of Luther's books and other heretical works. Now Luther's books had been publicly burnt in Cambridge eight years before and the ceremony had, as we have seen, been the occasion of a notable sermon by Bishop Fisher. About this time, however, there had grown up a small society of members of the university who were sympathetic towards Lutheran doctrine. They met in secret in the White Horse inn, which stood where are now the back buildings of the Bull Hotel—a place chosen so that members might enter unobserved by the back door and nicknamed 'Germany' by the orthodox[13]. Among the heretics who frequented these meetings was Segar Nicholson.

Foxe, in his Acts and Monuments, gives a sad account of the treatment of Nicholson: "The handling of this man," he says, "was too too cruel." After his release from prison, Nicholson remained a stationer till the age of 60, when he was ordained deacon by the Bishop of London.

In the meantime the university had taken steps to ensure the suppression of heretical books. In 1529 a petition was presented to Cardinal Wolsey, begging:

that for the suppression of error, there should be three booksellers allowed in Cambridge by the King, who should be sworn not to bring in or sell any book which had not first been approved of by the censor of books in the University, that such booksellers should be men of reputation and gravity, and foreigners, (so it should be best for the prizing of books,) and that they might have the privilege to buy books of foreign merchants[14].

It was, no doubt, as a result of this petition that five years later Cambridge printing was formally established by royal charter on 20 July, 1534, when Henry VIII by letters patent gave licence to the Chancellor, masters, and scholars

to assign and elect from time to time, by writing under the seal of the Chancellor of the University, three stationers and printers, or sellers of books, residing within the University, who might be either aliens or natives, and hold either their own or hired houses. The stationers or printers thus assigned, and every of them, were empowered to print all manner of books approved of by the Chancellor or his vicegerent and three doctors, and to sell and expose to sale in the University or elsewhere within the realm, as well such books as other books printed within or without the realm, and approved of by the Chancellor or his vicegerent and three doctors. If aliens, these stationers or printers were empowered to reside in the University, in order to attend to their business, and were to be reputed and treated as the King's faithful subjects and lieges, and to enjoy the same liberties, customs, laws, and privileges; and to pay and contribute to lot, scot, tax, tallage, and other customs and impositions as the other subjects and lieges of the King. Provided, that the said stationers or printers, being aliens, paid all customs, subsidies, and other monies, for their goods and merchandizes imported or exported, as other aliens[15].

This is the Magna Carta of Cambridge printing and Fuller quotes with quiet pride the opinion of Sir Edward Coke that "this University of Cambridge hath power to print within the same 'omnes' and 'omnimodos libros' which the University of Oxford hath not."

We should now expect to see a steady continuance of university printing. But, in spite of the King's letters patent, the history of Cambridge printing for nearly fifty years is a blank. It is true that the university immediately availed itself of the privilege conferred upon it, and the "three stationers and printers or sellers of books residing within the university" who were appointed were Nicholas Speryng, Garrett Godfrey, and Segar Nicholson, whose careers have been sketched above. That two of these were bookbinders and churchwardens, that one owned a brewery, and that one took holy orders we have evidence, but of printing there is no trace. The strangest appointment is that of Nicholson, since the aim of the university in petitioning Wolsey for the control of printing and bookselling was the suppression of those Lutheran doctrines for which Nicholson had recently been imprisoned.

But it is clear that, for a time at any rate, the university, while showing no desire to encourage the art of printing, was quick to establish its control and censorship of books.

Some idea of a university bookseller's stock at this time may be obtained from the will of Nicholas Pilgrim[16], appointed in 1539 as successor to Garrett Godfrey, from whom he inherited a "furryd gown and iij presses with a cuttynge knife." Of the 717 books of which an inventory is given in Pilgrim's will 216 were bound and 501 unbound, the whole stock being valued at £26 11s 6d. Most of the books are either editions of the classics or theological works, but there are a few on medical and botanical subjects.

But like Richard Noke, appointed in 1540, and Peter Sheres (1545-6) Pilgrim appears to have been university printer only in name.

At the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, when all unlicensed printing was prohibited, the powers of the chancellors of the universities to license books were duly recognised and in 1576, when John Kingston was appointed as printer, the university seems definitely to have contemplated the establishment of a printing-press:

On the 18th of July, Lord Burghley wrote from Theobalds to Dr Goad Vicechancellor and the Heads, with reference to their intention of bringing the exercise of printing into the University, for which purpose they had engaged one Kingston of London, whom they purposed to protect with the University privilege to print Psalters, Books of Common Prayer, and other books in English, for which the Queen had already granted special privileges to William Seres, Richard Jugge, John Day, and others. His Lordship disapproved of any attempts to prejudice the Queen's grants, but thought they might employ an artificer for printing matters pertaining to the schools &c.[17]

In the light of this pronouncement it is easy to understand why John Kingston, who was well-known as a London stationer, printed no books in Cambridge.

At last, in 1583, we come to the name of a university printer who in fact printed books at Cambridge: Thomas Thomas, Fellow of King's College, was appointed University printer by grace of 3 May, 1583, and in the same year began to print a work by William Whitaker.

The Stationers' Company of London quickly seized his press and declared that his attempt was an infringement of their rights. In a letter to Burghley, dated 1 June, 1583, the Bishop of London wrote:

There was alsoe found one presse and furniture which is saide to belonge to one Thomas a man (as I heare) utterlie ignoraunte in printinge, and pretendinge that he entendeth to be the printer for the universitie of Cambridge.

The Vice-Chancellor and Heads, however, took up the cause of their printer and in reply to a letter from Burghley suggesting a conference with the Stationers, wrote as follows:

Our most humble duties to your honour remembred.

Whereas we understand by your honours letters, that certain of the company of the stationers in London have sought to hinder the erecting of a print within the university of Cambridg, and to impugne that antient privilege, granted and confirmed by divers princes for that purpose, to the great benefit of the university and augmentation of learning: these are in most humble manner to desire your honour, not so much in respect of Mr Thomas, who hath already received great injury and dammage at their hands, as in behalf of the university; which findeth itself very much aggrieved with the wrongful detaining of those goods, wherewithal, as we are persuaded, in right and equity they ought not to meddle, to continue our honorable patron, and to direct your favourable warrants to the warden of the stationers, that he may have his press delivered with speed; lest that by their means, as he hath been disappointed of Mr Whitakers book, so by their delays he be prevented of other books made within the university, and now ready for the press.

As for the doubts which they caused, rather in respect of their private gain and commodity, and to bring the universities more antient privileges in this behalf than theirs under their jurisdiction at London, than for any other good consideration, the deciding or peril whereof also pertaineth not to them; we dare undertake, in the behalf of Mr Thomas whom we know to be a very godly and honest man, that the press shall not be abused, either in publishing things prohibited, or otherwise inconvenient for the church and state of this realm. And this we promise the rather, for that his grace (whereof we have sent a copy to your honour by himself) was granted unto him upon condition that he should stand bound from time to time to such articles as your honour and the greatest part of the heads of colleges should ty him unto.

And for the conference, whereunto your honour moveth us, if it shall be your honours pleasure, wee, as desirous of peace and concord, (the premisses considered,) shall be ready to shew our willingness thereunto, if it shall please the company of stationers in London to send hither some certain men from them with sufficient authority for that purpose. Thus most humbly desiring that the press may no longer be stayed, and hoping that your honour will further our desire herein, we do in our daily prayer commend your lordship to the blessed tuition of the Almighty.

From Cambridge, this 14th of June[18].

This letter has been quoted in full partly because it is the first of a long series of protests, partly because it is a good example of the attitude consistently adopted by the university in regard to printing—a dutiful desire not to abuse their privilege coupled with a dignified determination not to be bullied by the Stationers.

As a result of the appeal contained in the letter, the charter of 1534 was submitted to the Master of the Rolls, who concurred in the opinion that it was valid; and on 24 July, 1584, Thomas entered into a recognizance in 500 marks before the Vice-Chancellor.

Books now began to issue from Thomas's press and some of them quickly excited the odium theologicum; when, for instance, a work by Walter Travers in support of Presbyterianism was printed, the greater part of the edition was confiscated.

Ever sens I hard that they had a Printer in Cambridg (wrote Archbishop Whitgift to Lord Burghley), I did greatlie fear this and such like inconveniences wold followe, nether do I thingk that yt wyll so stay, for althowgh Mr Vicechancellor that now ys, be a verie careful man and in all respectes greatlie to be commended, yet yt may fawle owt hereafter, that some such as shal succeade hym wyll not be so well affected, nor have such care for the publike peace of the Church, and of the state, but whatsoever your Lordship shall thingk good to be done in this matter ... I wyll performe yt accordinglie. I thingk yt verie convenient that the bokes should be burned, beeing verie factius and full of untruthes: and that (yf printing do styll there continew) sufficient bonds with suerties shold be taken of the printer not to print anie bokes, unlesse they be first allowed by lawfull authoritie, for yf restrante be made here and libertie graunted there, what good can be done....[19]

From this time forward, indeed, Cambridge printing was for many years continually harassed by two disturbing forces—theological suspicion and by commercial jealousy. Thus, in 1585, when it was discovered that London printers had printed various books already printed by the universities, a grace was passed forbidding Cambridge booksellers to sell, and Cambridge students to buy, "any book printed at London or elsewhere in England, which had been or thereafter should be printed at Cambridge or Oxford," always provided that the university printers did not sell their books at a higher price than that fixed by the Vice-Chancellor and the others named in Thomas's articles.

In the next year the archbishop was again growing anxious; in June, 1586, it was laid down by a Star Chamber ordinance that no book was to be printed without either his own or the Bishop of London's approval, and a few months later Whitgift wrote to his very loving friend the Vice-Chancellor:

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 (2s 8d). 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 3d a lb. In his "necessaries for pryntinge" are included "one presse with the furneture" (66s 8d), "iiij^or payer of chases" (13s 4d), "ij great stooles" (12d), "iiij^or gallies" (16d) and "the wasshing troufhe" (12d)[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.

[i51]

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, 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]

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]

[i61]

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 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.