There is no copy of Virgil now in the Library amongst those which it possessed previously to 1642, which is 'exquisitely bound' as well as 'n.o.bly printed;' it is not therefore possible to fix on the particular volume which the King consulted.

A.D. 1645.

A small slip of paper, carefully preserved, is the memorial of an interesting incident connected with the last days in Oxford of the Martyr-King whose history is so indissolubly united with that of the place. Amidst all the darkening anxieties which filled the three or four months preceding the surrender of himself to the Scots, King Charles appears to have s.n.a.t.c.hed some leisure moments for refreshment in quiet reading. His own library was no longer his; but there was one close at hand which could more than supply it. So, to the Librarian Rous, (the friend of Milton, but whose anti-monarchical tendencies, we may be sure, had always. .h.i.therto been carefully concealed) there came, on Dec. 30, an order, 'To the Keeper of the University Library, or to his deputy,'

couched in the following terms: 'Deliver unto the bearer hereof, for the present use of his Majesty, a book int.i.tuled, _Histoire universelle du Sieur D'Aubigne_, and this shall be your warrant;' and the order was one which the Vice-Chancellor had subscribed with his special authorization, 'His Majestyes use is in commaund to us. S. Fell, Vice Can.' But the Librarian had sworn to observe the Statutes which, with no respect of persons, forbad such a removal of a book; and so, on the reception of Fell's order, Rous 'goes to the King; and shews him the Statutes, which being read, the King would not have the booke, nor permit it to be taken out of the Library, saying it was fit that the will and statutes of the pious founder should be religiously observed[104].'

Perhaps a little of the hitherto undeveloped Puritan spirit may have helped to enliven the conscience of the Librarian, who, had he been a Cavalier, might have possibly found something in the exceptional circ.u.mstances of the case, to excuse a violation of the rule; but, as the matter stood, it reflects, on the one hand, the highest credit both on Rous's honesty and courage, and shows him to have been fit for the place he held, while, on the other hand, the King's acquiescence in the refusal does equal credit to his good-sense and good-temper. We shall see that this occurrence formed a precedent for a like refusal to the Protector in 1654 by Rous's successor, when Cromwell showed equal good feeling and equal respect for law.

[104] Bp. Barlow's Argument against Lending Books. _MS._

A.D. 1646.

'When Oxford was surrendered (24^o Junii, 1646) the first thing Generall Fairfax did was to set a good guard of soldiers to preserve the Bodleian Library. 'Tis said there was more hurt donne by the Cavaliers (during their garrison) by way of embezzilling and cutting off chaines of bookes then there was since. He was a lover of learning, and had he not taken this special care, that n.o.ble library had been utterly destroyed, for there were ignorant senators enough who would have been contented to have had it so. This I doe a.s.sure you from an ocular witnesse, E. W. esq[105].'

[105] Aubrey's _Lives_; in _Letters by Eminent Persons_, ii. 346.

A.D. 1647.

John Verneuil, M.A., Sub-librarian, died about the end of September. He was a native of Bordeaux, and came into England as a Protestant refugee shortly before 1608. In that year he entered at Magdalene College, and was incorporated M.A. from his own University of Montauban in 1625.

Besides his share in the Appendix to the Catalogue noticed under the year 1635, the following small book of a similar kind in English was issued by him: _A Nomenclator of such Tracts and Sermons as have beene printed, or translated into English upon any place or booke of Holy Scripture; now to be had in the most famous and publique Library of Sir Thomas Bodley in Oxford_. This is the t.i.tle of the second and enlarged edition, which appeared in 1642 in a small duodecimo volume, printed at Oxford, by Henry Hall. The first edition (which was not entirely confined to books in the Library) was printed under the author's initials by William Turner in 1637. Some books communicated by friends are here cited, which would, says Verneuil, have been accessible in the Bodleian, 'had the Company of Stationers beene as mindfull of their covenant as my selfe have beene zealous for the good of this our Library.' In an interesting undated letter from Sir Richard Napier, Knt.

(while apparently an undergraduate of Wadham College, before 1630) to his uncle the Rev. Richard Napier, which is preserved in Ashmole MS.

1730, fol. 168, is the following curious pa.s.sage relating to the facilities for studying in the Library, which were afforded to him by Verneuil:--

'I have made a faire way to goe into the Library privately when I please, and there to sitt from 6 of the clocke in the morneing to 5 at night. I have a private place in the Library to lay those bookes and to write out what I list, without being seene by any, or any comeing to me.

I have made the second Keeper of the Library [_i.e._ Verneuil] my friend and servant, who promised me his key at all tymes to goe in privately, when as otherwise it is not opened above 4 houres a day, and some days not att all, as on Hollidays, and their eves in the afternoone, yett then by his meanes I shall [have] free accesse and recesse at all tymes.

He hath pleasured me so farr as to lett me write in his counting house, or his little private study in the great publick library, where I may very privately write, and locke up all safely when I depart thence; he will write for me when I have not the leisure, or will transcribe any thinge I shall desire him, and if it be French translate it, for that is his mother tonge.'

Probably the practice here mentioned of admitting readers by favour into the Library at unstatutable times grew in the course of years to a considerable height, or was found (as might naturally be expected) productive of mischievous consequences, for on Nov. 8, 1722, it was 'ordered by the Curators that no person under any pretence whatsoever be permitted to study in the said Library at any other time than what is prescribed and limited by the Bodleian Statutes.'

Verneuil was succeeded in his office in the Library by Francis Yonge, M.A., of Oriel College.

Milton's gift of his _Poems_. See under 1620.

A.D. 1648.

At the end of the Readers' Register for 1647-8, 1648-9, is a list of nine volumes 'olim surrepti,' of which five had been replaced by other copies. Entries are made in the same place of some coins which were given in 1648-50. At this period the Library appears to have been well attended by readers; about twelve or fifteen quarto and octavo volumes being daily entered, those of folio size being accessible (as, in regard to a portion of the Library, is still the case) by the readers themselves, and not registered because at that time chained to their shelves. The register for the next years (as well as those which followed, up to the year 1708) appears to be lost, so that it cannot be ascertained whether this daily average continued during the Usurpation; but thus far it seems that Dr. John Allibond's description of the state of the Library as consequent on the Puritan visitation of the University in 1648, is not borne out by facts. For that loyal humourist, in his _Rustica Academiae Oxoniensis nuper reformatae Descriptio_, which is supposed to commemorate the condition of Oxford in Oct. 1648, writes thus of our Library:--

'Conscendo orbis illud decus Bodleio fundatore: Sed intus erat nullum pecus, Excepto janitore.

Neglectos vidi libros multos, Quod mimime mirandum: Nam inter bardos tot et stultos There's few could understand 'em.'

A.D. 1649.

'The Jews proffer 600,000 for Paul's, and Oxford Library, and may have them for 200,000 more[106].' They wished to obtain the first for a synagogue, and to do a little commercial business with the second. It is said in Monteith's _History of the Troubles_ (translated by Ogilvie, 1735, p. 473) that the sum they offered was 500,000, but that the Council of War refused to take less than 800,000: probably they afterwards increased this their original bid to 600,000.

Philip, Earl of Pembroke, the Puritan Chancellor of the University, gave a splendidly bound copy of the Paris Polyglott, printed in 1645 in 10 vols.

[106] London News-letter of April 2; printed in Carte's _Collection of Letters_, vol. i. p. 275.

A.D. 1652.

John Rous, the Librarian, died in the beginning of April, probably on April 3, as, the Statutes requiring the election of Librarian to take place within three days of a vacancy, it was on the 6th of that month that Thomas Barlow, M.A., Fellow of Queen's College, was unanimously elected to be Rous's successor. At the same time certain orders were read in Convocation which the Curators had made, for the formation by the Librarian of a Catalogue of the coins and other rarities, providing also that they should be regularly visited and verified by the Curators every November[107].

A legacy of 20 from Rous to the Library is entered in the Benefaction Register, under the year 1661, probably because it may not have been actually received until that year.

[107] Reg. 'T. 158-9.' MS. Note by Dr. P. Bliss.

A.D. 1653.

Fifteen MSS., by Spanish authors, were given by Peter Pett, LL.B., Fellow of All Souls' College; and a sacred Turkish vestment of linen (e Mus. 45) on which the whole of the Koran is written in Arabic, by Richard Davydge, an East Indian merchant.

A.D. 1654.

'April last, 1654, my Lord Protector sent his letter to Mr.

Vice-Chancellor to borrow a MS. (Joh. de Muris) for the Portugal Amba.s.sador. A copy of the Statute was sent (but not the book), which when his Highness had read, he was satisfy'd, and commended the prudence of the Founder, who had made the place so sacred[108].'

Cromwell's gift of MSS. See under 1629.

[108] Barlow's Argument against Lending Books out.

A.D. 1654-1659.

The death of John Selden occurred on Nov. 30[109]. By his will the Library became possessed at once of his collection of Oriental and Greek MSS., together with a few Latin MSS. specially designated, as well as of such of his Talmudical and Rabbinical books as were not already to be found there. It has generally been supposed that no part of his library was received before the year 1659, and that none at all was actually bequeathed by Selden. The account usually given (taken from Burnet's Life of Sir M. Hales, p. 156[110]) is that Selden was so offended with the University for refusing the loan of a MS., except upon a bond for 1000, that he revoked that part of his will which left his library to the Bodleian, and put it entirely at the free disposal of his executors, and that they, when five years had pa.s.sed, during which the Society of the Inner Temple (to whom it was first offered) had taken no steps to provide a building for its reception, conceiving themselves to be executors not of Selden's pa.s.sion but of his will, sent it in 1659 to its original destination[111]. But it is clear from Selden's will (as printed by Wilkins in his _Works_, vol. i. p. lv.) that the books mentioned above were really bequeathed by him to Oxford; a line or two appears to be somehow omitted, by which the sense of the pa.s.sage is lost, and in consequence of which the name of the Library does not appear, but there is a general reference to it both in the specification of such Hebrew books as are 'not already in the Library,' and in the mention of the '_said_ Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars' of the University (although no previous mention of them occurs); while all other books not thus conveyed are left to the disposal of his executors.

But a letter from Langbaine to Poc.o.c.ke, written from London only three days after Selden's death, furnishes proof positive; for there the former writes, as executor, that all the Oriental MSS., with such Rabbinical and Talmudical printed books as were not already in the Library, and the Greek MSS. not otherwise disposed of, are left to Oxford[112]. And in the Annual Accounts, under the year 1655, we find the following entries:--

Pro vectura codic.u.m MSS. a Londino Oxoniam 0 9_s._ D. Langbaine pro expensis c.u.m Londinum petiit, libros a Seldeno legatos repet.i.turus 5 0 D. Ed. Poc.o.c.ke eodem tempore in rem eandem Londinum misso. 7 0

It is clear, therefore, that a portion of Selden's collection came to the Library by his bequest immediately after his death. And the reason why the whole was not bequeathed is certainly not correctly stated by Burnet, nor even by Wood, who says that he had been informed that it was because the borrowing of certain MSS. had been refused. For the Convocation Register shows that a grace was _pa.s.sed_ in Convocation, on Aug. 29, 1654, which sanctioned the giving leave to Selden to have MSS.

from the collections of Barocci, Roe, and Digby (these donors having either expressed an opinion, or distinctly stipulated, that the rigour of the Library Statutes should sometimes be relaxed), provided he did not have more than three at a time, and that he gave bond in 100 (not 1000) for the return of each of them within a year[113]. Had these conditions been really the cause of Selden's taking offence, his executors would hardly have stipulated, as they actually did, in their own conditions of gift, that no book from his collection should hereafter be lent to any person upon any condition whatsoever. But there is certainly some obscurity hanging over the matter, which probably may be dispersed by further investigation. The writer of the sketch of the history of the Bodleian prefixed to Bernard's _Cat. MSS._, after quoting Wood's account, only says, when barely more than forty years had elapsed, that he will not venture to speak rashly about the case of the lending of books; as if it were already forgotten how the facts stood.

On the proposal to lend being first mooted, Barlow, the Librarian, drew up a paper on the general question, in which he opposed it both on the grounds of Statute and expediency; the original MS. of which still exists in the Library. Selden was at first mentioned in this paper by name, with distinct reference to his application; but the name was subsequently crossed out wherever it thus occurred, and the subject treated without any personal reference[114]. In this paper the Librarian objects to the proposal, firstly, on the ground of precedent, since, though the University had power, with the joint consent of the Chancellor, Heads of Houses, and Convocation, to lend books, yet it had never thought fit to do so, except with regard to Lord Pembroke's MSS.; secondly, on the ground that if the rule were once broken, it would be impossible to refuse any person, without incurring great odium, while the gratifying all applicants would disperse into private hands the books intended for the public. He then proceeds as follows:--

'3. Suppose 3 bookes at a time be sent to any private man, 'tis true he is furnish'd, but 'tis manifestly to the prejudice of the Publick, the University wanting those books while he has them; so that if any forreigner coming hither from abroad desire to see them, or any at home desire to use them, both are disappointed, to the diminution of the honour of the University, in the one, and the benefit it might have by those books, in the other. And therefore it seems more agreeable to reason and the public good (and the declared will and precept of our prudent and pious Founder[115]) not to lend any books out of the Library; for by not lending, private persons only want the use of those books which are another's, whereas by lending, the University wants the use of those books which are her own. Sure no prudent man can think it fit to gratify particular persons with the publick detriment.

'4. The Library is a magazine which the pious Founder hath fix'd in a publick place for a publick use; and though his charity to private persons is such that he will hinder none (who is justly qualify'd and worthy) to come to it, yet his charity to the publick is such that he would not have it ambulatory, to goe to any private person. And sure 'tis more rational that Mahomet should go to the mountaine, than that the mountaine should come to Mahomet.

'5. Lending of books makes them lyable to many casualties, as, I.

absolute losse, either 1. _in via_, by the carrier's negligence, or violence offer'd him, or, 2. _in termino_, they may be lost by the person that borrows them; for (presuming the person n.o.ble, and carefull for their preservation, yet) his house may be burn'd, or (by robbers) broken open (as Mr. Selden's unhappily was not long since): or, (in case they scape these casualties) they may be spoyl'd in the carriage, as by sad experience we find, for above 60 or 100 leaves of a Greek MS.[116]

lent out of _Archiva Pembrochiana_ to Mr. Pat. Younge were irrecoverably defaced. Now what has happen'd heretofore may happen hereafter; and therefore to keep them sacredly (and without any lending) in the Library (according to our good Founder's will and statute) will be the best way for their preservation.'

Barlow adds finally, in the sixth and seventh places, that if all lending were declared unlawful, it would greatly encourage others to give more to the Library when they saw how religiously their gifts would be preserved, and that if no exceptions were made (except, as allowed by Archbp. Laud, for the purpose of printing), no applications would be made, and no one would take it ill if he were denied.