Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 9.djvu/408

 402

NOTES AND QUERIES. [n s. ix. MAY 23, wu.

at a cost of 30s. ; and in 1574 six dozen at a cost of 60s. The rate apparently was 10s. per dozen, therefore the charge ' per billam ' in 1572 probably does not cover more than seven dozen chains at the outside. It may mean less, if the charge for putting on the chains is lumped in with that for the chains themselves ; but this is not very likely, as in other years the chains are apparently sup- plied by one person and put on the books by another. In 1572, however, there is no charge for the chaining of books. In 1573 the chaining cost 6s. 8d. ; in 1574, lls. ; from the last entry it appears that the work was paid for at the rate of Is. for each dozen volumes, or each dozen chains ; it would come to much the same, as few books, if any, would have two chains.

" Thus the chains supplied were (at the outside) 84 in 1572, CO in 1573, and 72 in 1574. The chains put upon books were (probably) 80 in 1573, and 132 in 1574. The two totals are very nearly equal ; and the result seems to show that the volumes chained at the time when Jewel's books were coming in did not exceed 220. Probably these were not all Jewel's books ; for there is evidence of a few purchases in the course of the three years from other sources, and the account for 1572 shows a charge for carriage of books, apparently the gift or bequest of some one of the name of Spenser. There is no charge for the purchase of these ; but the sum paid for carriage suggests that they were either considerable in number or had a long way to come.

" There are no charges for the carriage of Jewel's books the charges for carriage (apart from that already mentioned) during the three years are very small. I infer that the vendors of Jewel's books undertook to deliver them at the College, and that the payment of 1201. covered both cost and carriage, so far as the College was concerned. Thus the actual price of the books would be less than 1201. ; though not much less. It seems to me likely that Humfrey's journey to Salisbury about the books was due to the desire of purchasing selected books. If the College had wanted to purchase Jewel's library en bloc, some less dignified person could have done all that would be needed in the way of making a list or counting the volumes, so that they might be checked on arrival at Oxford. For a selection special knowledge would be needed ; and Hum- frey was probably the most capable person available for this skilled work. If the College purchased only selected volumes, the average price per volume would be higher than if it pur- chased the whole ; and a sum which might have bought four or five hundred volumes of mixed quality might not have purchased more than a small part of Jewel's whole collection, if that small part was specially chosen.

" On the whole, it seems to me that the evidence of the accounts, such as it is, favours the supposi- tion that we bought only a part of Jewel's library ; SDSsibly only a hundred volumes, or even fewer, ut I should say that it is quite certain that the purchase included many volumes besides those which can now be identified as part of Jewel's collection, and that it is most likely that a good many besides those which have his stamp or other sign of ownership are still in the library. The date on his stamp shows that it was not in use till the last year of his life ; and though several of the books on which the stamp appears are of earlier dates, and were likely in his possession for some

years before 1571, it may well be that the stamping process had not been applied to all or nearly all his books at the time of his death."

The " list " referred to is thus given in Dr. Macray's edition (1897) of the ' Register of St. Mary Magdalen College,' Oxford. (New Series, vol. ii. pp. 43-4) :

" 1572. Some of Bishop Jewel's books were bought for the library ; 51. were paid for them now,, and 31. Os. IGd* to the President for going to Salisbury for them, and 20Z. more were paid in 1574. In several of these there is found an earlier example of an English book-plate in the form of a book-stamp than has hitherto been noticed, in the adoption of which Jewel had no doubt copied f in the very year of his death, the example of some of his foreign friends. On the last page of the edition of Matthew of Westminster printed in 1567 is a stamp with this device : within a circle a hand holding a flower, the stalk dividing the words ' Bel Ami ' ; within the lines which describe the circle, ' lohan. lewcl. Episcop. Sarisb. 1571.' (On the title-page is the name of a preceding owner, which has been scratched through, appa- rently ' Jo. Thamy,' with ' pret. vj 8 ' written by the same hand.) This is also found both on the title and the last leaf of the edition of Pliny's ' Epistles ' printed by Froben in 1552, and in the following books : * Vet. Test. Gr. Lat.,' Bas. 1550 ; ' Nov. Test. Gr. Lat.,' Bas. 1566 ; * Biblia Gr.,' Bas. 1545 ; Jac. Faber, ' Comment, in Evangelia et Epp.,' 2 vols., 1523, 1515 ; Theo- phylact, ' Comment, in Evangelia,' Bom., 1542 ? ' Haeresologia,' Bas. 1556. Bullinger's ' Com- ment, in Danielem,' Zurich, 1565, bears this (partly mutilated) autograph inscription on the title-page : ' Ampliss. doctissimoque viro D. Joanni Juello^ Sarisberien. in Anglia Episcopo vigilantiss, domino meo colendo [ac amico ?] chariss. Hen- ri chus Bullingerus perpetuae amicitiae observan- tiaeque ergo D.D.' Another autograph is that of Peter Martyr on the title-page of his 'Defensio Doctrinae de Euch. Sacr.,' 1559 : ' Amico suo et hospiti charissimo D. Jo. Juello, Aug. .. .Petrua Martyr D.D.' These are all the books which I have met with bearing distinct marks of Jewel's ownership, but it is evident from the price paid that there must be, or must have been, more in the Library. "

Mr. Wilson's painstaking and exhaustive reply to the query of MAGDALENENSIS would assuredly have more than satisfied that laudably inquisitive individual (as it does me), while his courteous correction of Dr. Macray's misreadings is valuable in the interests of accuracy. The errors, however, though a quite " serious discrepancy between

later called Mr. Wilson's attention. " I have very little doubt," he wrote, " that the sum paid to Humfrey [for his journey to Salisbury] was 3Z. 16s. Od., as MAGDALENENSIS gives it ; it was one sum ' per billam ' (no doubt according to Humfrey's note of his travelling expenses) ; and this excludes the chance that 3?. might appear in one place in the account and IGd. in another." It is curious (and a pity) that two such errors should occur In one sentence.
 * This is a second " discrepancy " to which I