Front Cover
 Title Page
 Front Matter
 Table of Contents

Edinburgh Bibliographical Society transactions.
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00089421/00002
 Material Information
Title: Edinburgh Bibliographical Society transactions.
Physical Description: Book
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: Copyright in the Transactions when applicable resides with the Edinburgh Bibliographical Society.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 1567477
System ID: UF00089421:00002

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page ii
    Title Page
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Front Matter
        Page v
        Page vi
    Table of Contents
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
        Page 288
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
        Page 299
        Page 300
        Page 301
        Page 302
        Page 303
        Page 304
        Page 305
        Page 306
        Page 307
        Page 308
        Page 309
        Page 310
        Page 311
        Page 312
        Page 313
        Page 314
        Page 315
        Page 316
        Page 317
        Page 318
        Page 319
        Page 320
        Page 321
        Page 322
        Page 323
        Page 324
        Page 325
        Page 326
        Page 327
        Page 328
        Page 329
        Page 330
        Page 331
        Page 332
        Page 333
        Page 334
        Page 335
        Page 336
        Page 337
        Page 338
        Page 339
        Page 340
        Page 341
        Page 342
        Page 343
        Page 344
        Page 345
        Page 346
        Page 347
        Page 348
        Page 349
        Page 350
        Page 351
        Page 352
        Page 353
        Page 354
        Page 355
        Page 356
        Page 357
        Page 358
        Page 359
        Page 360
        Page 361
        Page 362
        Page 363
        Page 364
        Page 365
        Page 366
        Page 367
        Page 368
        Page 369
        Page 370
        Page 371
        Page 372
        Page 373
        Page 374
        Page 375
        Page 376
        Page 377
        Page 378
        Page 379
        Page 380
        Page 381
        Page 382
        Page 383
        Page 384
        Page 385
        Page 386
        Page 387
        Page 388
        Page 389
        Page 390
        Page 391
        Page 392
        Page 393
        Page 394
        Page 394a
        Page 394b
        Page 395
        Page 396
        Page 397
        Page 398
        Page 399
        Page 400
        Page 401
        Page 402
        Page 403
        Page 404
        Page 405
        Page 406
        Page 407
        Page 408
        Page 409
        Page 410
        Page 411
        Page 412
        Page 413
        Page 414
        Page 415
        Page 416
        Page 417
        Page 418
        Page 418a
        Page 419
        Page 420
        Page 421
        Page 422
        Page 423
        Page 424
        Page 425
        Page 426
        Page 427
        Page 428
        Page 429
        Page 430
        Page 431
        Page 432
        Page 433
        Page 434
        Page 435
        Page 436
        Page 437
        Page 438
        Page 439
        Page 440
        Page 441
        Page 442
        Page 443
        Page 444
        Page 445
        Page 446
        Page 447
        Page 448
        Page 449
        Page 450
        Page 451
        Page 452
        Page 453
        Page 454
        Page 455
        Page 456
        Page 457
        Page 458
        Page 459
        Page 460
Full Text



Vol. II, Pt 4 (Sessions 1942-3, 1943-4 and 1944-5)

Half-title, title, woodcut by Joan HASSALL, presentation inscrip- i-viii
tion composed by C. J. FORDYCE, office-bearers, contents
The St Andrews University Theses, 1579-1747: supplement. 263

Sir George Mackenzie's Speech at the Formal Opening of the 273
Advocates' Library, 1689. Translated by J. H. LOUDON
The First Twenty Years of the National Library of Scotland. 285
By M. R. DOBIE and William BEATTIE

Authorship Attributions in the Early Play-lists, 1656-71. By 303

Second Supplement to the fland-list of Incunabula in the 331
National Library of Scotland. By William BEATTIE. With
four facsimiles
The Anonymous Designations in Boswell's Journal of a Tour 353
to the Hebrides and their Identification. By L. F. POWELL

Miscellany. With four pages of facsimiles 373

Index 455

EDINBURGH ,.-- ,.5
yPrinted for the Society I
By R. & R. Clark Ltd (







Printed for the Society







Hon. Presidents
fA. W. Pollard, C.B. (1938-44)
fSir Stephen Gaselee, K.C.M.G. (1938-43)
W. K. Dickson, LL.D.
G. D. Hobson, M.V.O.
F. S. Ferguson
J. D. Ogilvie, LL.D.

Hon. Secretary
William Beattie
National Library of Scotland

L. W. Sharp (1938-9)
John Grant (1939-45)

R. G. Cant (1938-9)
tAlexander Mitchell (1939-42)

Hon. Treasurer
William Watt, W.S.
28 Charlotte Square

Hon. Auditor
J. A. Petrie

Members of Committee
tWilliam Dunlop (1938-9)
J. W. Oliver, D.Litt.
fJohn Stirton, C.V.O., D.D. (1939-44)
L. W. Sharp (1939-45)


Woodcut of the Laigh Parliament Hall, National Library of Scotland. iv
Presentation inscription to Dr H. W. Meikle. Composed by C. J. FORDYCE V
Office-bearers, 1938-45 vi
Thomson's Collections of National Song, with special reference to the I
contributions of Haydn and Beethoven. By Cecil HOPKINSON and
C. B. OLDMAN. With 12 plates

The Development of Scott's Minstrelsy: an attempt at a reconstruction 65

A Hand-list of Works from the Press of John Wreittoun at Edinburgh, 89
1624-c. 1639. By William BEATTIE

The St Andrews University Theses, 1579-1747: a bibliographical intro- 1os, 263
duction. By R. G. CANT
Supplements to the Hand-list of Incunabula in the National Library of 15i, 331
Scotland. By William BEATTIE

Type-designs and Type-founding in Scotland. By A. F. JOHNSON 253

Sir George Mackenzie's Speech at the Formal Opening of the Advocates' 273
Library, Edinburgh, 15 March 1689. Translated from the Latin by
The First Twenty Years of the National Library of Scotland, 1925-1945:
I. Manuscripts. By M. R. DOBIE 287
II. Printed Books. By William BEATTIE 295

Authorship Attributions in the Early Play-lists, 1656-1671. 303

The Anonymous Designations in Boswell's Journal of a Tour to the 353
Hebrides and their Identification. By L. F. POWELL
The Adoption of the Latin Uncial: a suggestion. By Stanley MORISON 375
The Berne Legal Manuscript. By the Rt Hon. Lord COOPER 379
Medieval English Manuscripts and Contemporary Taste. By H. S. BENNETT 382
Registers of Supplications: Registra Supplicationum. By A. I. DUNLOP 383
More about John Seward. By V. H. GALBRAITH 385
The Debt of Bower to Fordun and Wyntoun. By E. W. M. BALFOUR- 386

The Library of the Dean and Chapter of York. By the Rev. Chancellor 390
A Manuscript of Hector Boece. By George WATSON 392
An Early Printed Fragment of the Buke of the Howlat. By William BEATTIE. 393
With a plate
Fourquevaux and Military Art in the Sixteenth Century. By Gladys 397
The Illustrations of the First Edition of Holinshed. By Victor SCHOLDERER 398
A Sonnet by King James VI of Scotland. By James CRAIGIE 404
Sir David Lindsay of the Mount, Secundus. By Sir Thomas INNES OF 406
LEARNEY, Lord Lyon King of Arms
Two Notes on the Text of Shakespeare. By Peter ALEXANDER 409
A Note on the Porter in Macbeth. By J. DOVER WILSON 413
An Early Seventeenth-century Scottish Binding. By G. D. HOBSON. With 416
a plate
Mr Johne Govane, Bibliothecary. By G. H. BUSHNELL 419
Papers from an Army Press, 1650. By J. D. OGILVIE 420
Two Scottish Literary Ventures of the Early Eighteenth Century. 423
An Eighteenth-century Social and Economic Survey of the Highlands. 426
By William ANGUS
Three Scottish Ghosts. By D. NICHOL SMITH 429
Bishop Percy's Annotated Copy of Lord Hailes's Ancient Scottish Poems. 432
Some Notes on the Public Library, Valletta. By John PURVES 437
The Bray Collection in the British Library of Political and Economic Science. 440
Tales from Blackwood. By Michael SADLEIR 443
The Literature of Domestic Medicine. By Douglas GUTHRIE 445
Association Books. By J. A. PETRIE 447
Watermarks. By Sir Henry THOMAS 449
Thumbnail Sketch of an Edinburgh Scholar. By Bruce DICKINS 450
Alexander Henderson, Book-collector. By W. M. PARKER 452








IN THE SPRING of 1944 a very notable addition was made to the series
of extant St Andrews theses through the discovery of no fewer than
fifteen items in two volumes of pamphlets purchased by Edinburgh Univer-
sity Library. The volumes had previously formed part of the library of
Professor T. H. Bryce of Glasgow, inherited from John Veitch (author of
The History and Poetry of the Scottish Border), Professor of Logic at St
Andrews, 1860-4, and thereafter at Glasgow, I864-94.2
The fifteen items in the collection fall into three classes. Five were merely
additional copies of theses already extant and noted, namely the St Salva-
tor's (class) theses for 1627, 1635, and 1703, and the St Leonard's theses
for 1634 and 1675. Three represented theses known to have existed at one
time but no longer extant. These were St Salvator's 1681, last noted at the
Constable sale in 1827, St Salvator's 1697, last noted at the Laing sale in
1879, and the only known St Andrews individual Arts theses-by Tobias
Mierbeck, 16oo-also last noted at the Laing sale. The remaining seven
items were 'lost theses' in the truest sense, theses whose existence might be
conjectured but of which no copies had ever been noted. These were St
Salvator's 16o8, 1613, 1628, and St Leonard's 1611, 1614, 1617, 1630.
So far as class theses in Arts are concerned, the results of these discoveries
may be summarized as follows: There are now known to be 37 examples,
17 of these being of St Salvator's and 20 of St Leonard's College. With the
io theses mentioned in Lamont's Diary, the number of which we have any
information whatsoever is 47. Of the 37 extant examples there are altogether
54 copies, but 26 items are still represented by one copy only. All the theses
but four may now be found in Edinburgh, either in the National Library
of Scotland or in the University Library, the latter having the best indi-
vidual collection with a total of 21 examples and 22 copies.
The new theses, while interesting in many ways, do not add greatly to
These notes should be read in conjunction with the Preface and Introduction to the parent work,
R. G. Cant, 'The St Andrews University Theses, 1579-1747', Edinburgh Bibliographical Society
Transactions, vol. II, part 2, pp. 107-17.
2 One of the volumes includes items 33 and 37; the other, the remaining items. This second volume
(which also includes theses of the other Scottish universities) incorporates MS. notes in the handwriting
of David Laing. Both volumes have been bound by MacLehose of Glasgow, presumably for Veitch,
While the evidence is not conclusive, there are at least strong indications that Veitch procured some,
if not all, of the theses at the Laing sale.

our knowledge of theses in general. In format they are all small quarto
pamphlets of the familiar type. All were printed in Edinburgh, the earlier
group yielding new examples of the work of Charteris, Hart, Finlason, and
Wreittoun. Certain individualities of content may be noted. St Salvator's
1613 provides a novel dedication-to the shade of Bishop Kennedy, the
founder of the college.' Here too, as also in St Salvator's 16o8, the names of
the candidates are not arranged in alphabetical order of christian names but
presumably in some order of merit. In St Leonard's 1611 and 1617 the
position of honour at the head of the list is assigned in each case to a member
of the patron's family. St Salvator's 1681 is interesting for two reasons. It
is the latest St Andrews example of multi-sectional theses. It is also a
striking instance of the use to which theses were put to advertise the political
views of the praeses, no doubt with a view to preferment in the university
or the church. The dedication of this particular loyalist effusion is to James,
Duke of Albany and York, and the copy in question seems to have been
sent to the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Perth, being inscribed to this
effect probably by the Praeses, James Martin. Martin received no reward
for his pains.2 Indeed of all the presiding regents here represented the only
one to achieve any subsequent distinction was John Strang (St Leonard's
1611), latterly Principal at Glasgow University from 1626 to 1650.
The earlier theses re-emphasize the fact that before the completion of the
University 'Publick School' (or 'Parliament Hall') in 1643, graduations
were normally held in the schools of St Mary's College. It was also the
practice for students of the two 'philosophy' colleges-St Salvator's and
St Leonard's-to take their degrees on different days.3
In the case of the individual Arts theses (Tobias Mierbeck of Antwerp,
St Leonard's 16oo) there is, again, little of special note. The item, a small
quarto of 8 leaves, resembles continental theses of the same type or, in the
case of St Andrews, the individual theological theses of the period 1595-
i6o2.4 A link with the latter group is provided by the dedication, which is
to Andrew Melville and the two other theological professors of the university.
In preparing this supplement, the author must acknowledge his renewed
obligation to the Librarian of the University of Edinburgh, Dr L. W.
Sharp, and to the Editor of this series, Mr William Beattie, Keeper of
Printed Books in the National Library of Scotland.
I Cf. King's College, Aberdeen, 1623.
2 He appears to have been deprived of his office after the Revolution of 1689 and finished his days
in the service of the Earl of Southesk.
3 The two colleges were on terms of rather less than friendly rivalry, but the main reason for this
separation was probably simply convenience. Disputation was a lengthy business even by seventeenth-
century standards.
4 There is no absolute proof that the disputation was connected with graduation but it appears
very likely. The Praeses, John Echlin, was regent at St Leonard's, 1591-1603, and would normally
have been due to present his class for graduation in 16oi.


In the Bibliography, entries are arranged on the same principles as in the
parent work, to which reference should be made. The additional items have
been allotted letters, appended to the original numeration, which will allow
of the insertion of any further 'lost' items in their proper sequence. For
identification, the new copies may be listed as 'Edinburgh, Univ. (from
the Library of John Veitch)'.


2i. ST SALVATOR'S 16o08 Praeses. William WEDDERBURN
[Heading composed of a double line of 'tulip' pieces] THESES I ALIQVOT
landasque proponent Adolescentes, Phi- I losophie alumni, e scholis
Saluaterianis hac vice emittendi ad diem [blank] Iulij [ in NEACADEM IA
ANDREANA. I [Greek text] I [Device of figures of Justice and Religion,
CHARTERS, Typographus Regis. 16o8.
4. Az, B-D4. 14 leaves. No pagination.
Aia, title. Aib, blank. A2a-A2b, dedication to James Elphinstone, [ist] Lord
Balmerino, signed at end by 36 Candidates, not in alphabetical order, headed by
'Ludovicus Elphinstonus'. Bla1CIb, 'Theses Logicae' (XXX). Cib-C3a, 'Theses
Ethicae' (XII). C3a-D2b, 'Theses Physicae' (XXIV). D2b-D3b, 'Theses Astrono-
micae' (VII). D4, probably blank.
Copy: Edinburgh, Univ. With contemporary MS. corrections. Lacks D4.

3a. ST LEONARD'S 1611 Praeses: John STRANG
[Within a border of 'tulip' pieces, double at sides.:] THESES I EX VBER-
RIMIS I Logica, ethicsf] Physica, Geometria, Astrono- \ mie, Meta-
physicae Lati-fun- j dijs varied excerpts&, adveritatem liman- I dam, in public
congress I vltrb citrbque agitande. I Quas propitio Numine sub presidio I
S VSCE- I perunt Adolescentes Gymnasii Leonardini alumni I Lauree
Magist. candidate ad diem [blank] Calendas Julias I AD. 1611. In scholis
Marianis Acade- | mia Andreane. I [device of female head, helmeted,

between cornucopiae, with initials 'A H' in base] I EDINBVR[GI] J Ex-
cudebat Andre[as Hart.]
4. Az, B-F4 G2. 24 leaves. No pagination. B2 wrongly signed C2.
AIa, title. Aib-A2b, dedication to Alexander Seton, [ist] Earl of Dunfermline,
etc., signed at end by 'Thomas Setonius' and 22 other Candidates. A2b, 'Lectori'.
BIa-DIa, 'Theses Logicae' (XLI). DIb-EIa, 'Theses Ethicae' (XVIII). EIa-F2a,
'Theses Physicae' (XXXIIII). F2a-F3a, 'Theses Geometricae' (VIII). F3a-F4b
'Theses Astronomicae' (XII). F4b-GIb, 'Theses Metaphysicae' (VII, but catch word
of no. VIII).
Copy: Edinburgh, Univ. With contemporary MS. insertion in line 2 of title and
other corrections. Lacks lower right-hand corner of title and whole of G2.

4a. ST SALVATOR'S 1613 Praeses: William LAMMIE
[Within a border of pieces.:] POSITIONES | ALIQVOT I LOGIC/E,
bus Salvatoriani Col- I legii alumnis cursum philosophi- I cum jam emensis,
& rudem ac Lauream magi- I stralem poscentibus, in public Philo- |
sopkantium consessu propugnandce Andreapoli I ad diem [blank] Kalend.
Quinct. An, 1613. | horis & loco solitis. I Praeside I GVLIELMO
LAMM IO. | [Two Greek texts] I [device of imperial crown] I Edinburgi. |
Excudebat Andreas Hart Bibliopola. ANNO DOM. 1613.
4. A-C4, D2. 14 leaves. No pagination.
Ala, title. Alb, blank. A2a-A3a, dedication 'Manibus Beatissimis Illustrissimi
Praesulis lacobi Kennedi, Salvatoriani Collegii Fundatoris Munificentissimi .'. A3b,
names of 18 Candidates, not in alphabetical order. A4a-B3a, 'Positiones Logicae'
(31), B3a-B4b, 'Ethicae' (16). B4b-C3b, 'Physicae' (34). C4a-DIa, 'Metaphysicae'
(12). Dia-D2b, 'Astronomicae & Cosmographicae' (12).
Copy: Edinburgh, Univ.

4d. ST LEONARD'S 1614 Praeses: Andrew BRUCE
[Headpiece within a border of pieces.:] THESES I ALIQVOT LOGI I
Magisterialem in Collegio Divi I LEONARDI hoc anno contendentes in
publi- I ca disputatione pro virili propugnabunt ad diem I KALEND. Julias
1614 in scholis MARIANIS I Academise Andreanse, I Proeside Andrea
Brusio. I [ornament] I EDINBVRGI, | Excudebat THOMAS FIN-
LASON Typographus R. M.

40. [*]2, A-B4, Cz. 16 leaves. No pagination.
[*] a, title. [*]Ib-[*]2_b, dedication to Colin Mackenzie of Kintail, signed at end by
23 Candidates, 'Tui quondam amantiss. condiscip'. Ala-A3b, 'Theses Logicae'
(XXIX). A3b-Bia, 'Ethicae' (XII). Bia-B4a, 'Physicae' (XXXII). B4a-CIa,
'Sphaericae' (X, but incomplete). CIb, blank. C2, probably blank.
Copy: Edinburgh, Univ. With contemporary MS. corrections. Lacks lower half of
Ci and whole of C2.

4j. ST LEONARD'S 1617 Praeses.: James KERR
[Headpiece within a border of pieces.:] THESES I ALIQVOT I LOGICAE,
NUMINE INGENVI I aliquot adolescents e celeberrjmo collegjo Leo-
nardjno I in academia Andreana, hac vice emittendi, pro virili I propugna-
bunt: ad diem [blank] lulij Anno Dom. 1617. I hora & loco consuetis. |
Preside IACOBO CARO. I [ornament] I EDINBVRGI, I Excudebat
THOMAS FINLASON, August. REG. I MAjEST. Typographus. 1617.
4. [*]4, A-C4. 16 leaves. No pagination. C2 wrongly signed C3.
[*] i, probably blank. [*]2a, title. [*]2b, astronomical diagram. [*]3a[*]4b, dedication
to John, [2nd] Earl of Kinghorne, signed at end by 'Jacobus Leon' and 31 other
Candidates, 'Tui honors condiscipuli studiosissimi'. Aia-A4a, 'Theses Logicae'
(XXIX). A4a-B2a, 'Theses Ethicae' (XIII). B2a-C2a, 'Theses Physicae' (XIX).
C2a-C3b, 'Theses Astronomicae' (XIIII). C4, probably blank.
Copy: Edinburgh, Univ. Lacks [*]i and C4.

6. ST SALVATOR'S 1627 Praeses: John BARRON
Additional copy: Edinburgh, Univ. With contemporary MS. corrections.

6b. ST SALVATOR'S 1628 Praeses: Alexander MONRO
[Within a border of pieces:] THESES I ALIQVOT PHILO- I
aliquot Adolescentes ex cele- | berrimo Collegio Salvatoriano hac vice I
emittendi, & Magisteriali rude I donandi in public Philosophan- I tifi
consessu pro virili pro- 1 pugnabunt, ad diem [blank] lulii, I ANNO 1628 |
horis & loco solitis. | Preside ALEXANDRO MONROO. I [rule] |
[Latin text] I [oblong ornament] I EDINBVRGI, I Excudebat Joannes
Wreittoun. 1628.
4. A2, B-D4, [Ez]. 16 leaves. No pagination.
Ala, title. AIb-A2b, dedication to Thomas Ruthven of Freeland, signed at end by
12 Candidates. BIa-B4b, 'Theses Logicae' (XX). B4b-C3a, 'Theses Ethicae' (XIII).
C3a-D4a, 'Theses Physicae' (XXV). D4L-D4b, 'Theses Metaphysicae' (IV, but
Copy: Edinburgh, Univ. With contemporary MS. corrections. Lacks El and E2.

9b. ST LEONARD'S 1630 Praeses: James MERCER
[Within a border of pieces.] THESES I ALIQVOT LOGI- I CAE,
ETHIC/E, I PHYSICAL, SPHAERICAE: I Quas, I Adolescentes ad
in Scholis Marianis I Academie Andreane propugnaturi sunt, I Die [blank]
Calendas Augustas, anno | salutis humane. 1630, I [rule] \ Preside
IACOBO MERCERO. | [rule] I [Latin text] I [ornament] I EDIN-
B VRGI, I Excudebat loannes Wreittoun. 1630o.

4. A-B4, C2. Io leaves. No pagination.
AIa, title. AIb, blank. A2a-A2b, dedication to George Stewart, son of [2nd] Earl
of Moray, signed at end by I I Candidates, 'Tui quondam amantissimi condiscipuli'.
A3a-Bib, 'Theses Logicae' (XXII). BIb-B2b, 'Theses Ethicae' (IX). B3-Ca, 'Theses
Physicae' (XXII). CIb-C2a, 'Theses Sphaericae' (VII). C2b, blank.
Copy: Edinburgh, Univ.

14. ST LEONARD'S 1634 Praeses: Mungo MURRAY
Additional copy: Edinburgh, Univ. With contemporary MS. notes and corrections.

15. ST SALVATOR'S 1635 Praeses: John ARMOUR
Additional copy: Edinburgh, Univ. With contemporary MS. corrections, also
inscription on title 'preceptori stio multfQ observando Mr A: Stephanidi'. (Armour
had been a student at Edinburgh, with Andrew Stevenson as his Regent, 1621-

30. ST LEONARD'S 1675 Praeses: Alexander COCKBURN
Additional copy: Edinburgh, Univ. With contemporary MS. corrections. Lacks
upper part of title.

33. ST SALVATOR'S 1681 Praeses: James MARTIN
Positiones Philosophicae | QUAS | Favente DEO, Andreapoli, loco solito, I
propugnabunt, in Collegio Salvatoris no-stri curriculum Philosophicum
emensi, & I splendid Laurece corolla hac vice conde- I corandi, adolescents
hi, | [Twenty-six names, one in capitals, follow in two columns of thirteen].

4. A3, B-D4, E'. 16 leaves. Pp. [i-vi] + 1-26.
Ala, blank. AIb-A3a, dedication to James, Duke of Albany and York, signed at
end by Praeses. A3b, title and names of Candidates. BIl-CIb (pp. I-io), 'Theses

Ethico-politicae' (XIV), ending 'Vivant Rex Et Albaniae Dux'. C2a-C3b (pp. 11-14),
'Theses Logicae' (IV). C3b-Dia (pp. 14-17), 'Theses Metaphysicae' (V). DIb-Elb
(pp. 18-26), 'Theses Physicae' (XIII). EIb (p. 26), colophon: 'Edinburgi, Excudebat
Haeres Andreae Anderson, Typographus Regius, Anno Dom. M.DC.LXXXI.'
Copy: Edinburgh, Univ. With contemporary MS. corrections, and inscription on
Ala, 'For The Right honorable The Earl of Pearth'. There are indications that this
may be the copy included in the Constable sale catalogue (7226).
Bibliographical References: Aldis 2286. Baxter 969.
Note.: The Theses ending on the first leaf of a gathering, the dedication and title
were printed on the remaining three leaves which were then folded round to the front
of the pamphlet and signed Ai-3.

37. ST SALVATOR'S 1697 Praeses: Alexander SCRYMGEOUR
[Within a double rule border:] THESES PHILOSOPHIC/E I QUAS
DEO FAVENTE, I Ingenui aliquot ADOLESCENTS Laurese
Magisterialis I Candidati e Collegio Sancti Salvatoris Nostri, Universitatis I
ANDREANAE, 20 die Julii, horis & loco solitis erudi- I torum Examini
subjicient. I [rule] I Preside ALEXANDRO SCRYMSOUR. I [rule] I
CANDIDATORUM NOMINA. I [Twenty-four names follow in three
columns of eight] I [Latin text between rules] I [device of intertwined 'JW'] I
EDINBURGI, I Excudebat Jacobus Watson. M.DC.XCVII.
4. A4. 4 leaves. Pp. [I, 2], 3-8.
Ala, title. Aib, dedication to Sir George Sinclair of Kinnaird and James Bethune,
son and heir of Bethune of Balfour 'in stativis nostris Philosophicis, non ita pridem,
inter Antepilanos facile primis', signed at end by Praeses. A2a-A4b (pp. 3-8), 'Theses
Philosophicae' (XXVIII).
Copy: Edinburgh, Univ. With contemporary MS. corrections. A copy is included
in the Laing sale catalogue (II 3623).
Bibliographical References: Aldis 3707. Baxter 971.

39. ST SALVATOR'S 1703 Praeses: Thomas FORRESTER

Additional copy. Edinburgh, Univ. More likely than copy in St Andrews, Univ.
(Murray donation) to be Laing sale item II 3623.


41. TOBIAS MIERBECK 16oo Praeses: John ECHLIN
[Heading composed of a double line of pieces] THESES PHYSICAE I
DEO OPT. MAX. DEFENDERE | conabor sub presidio Clarissimi

viri D. M. Ioannis I Echlini Philosophice Professoris in alma I Academia
Santandreana |I dignissimi. I Tobias Mierbekius. I Ad diem Aprilis. In
Collegio Mariano. I [device of figures of Justice and Religion, with initials
'H C' in base] I EDINBVRGI I Excudebat Robertus Charteris. I Cum
Privilegio Regie Maiestatis.
4. A4 within [*]4. 8 leaves. No pagination.
[*]i, probably blank. [*]2a, title. [*]2b, dedication to Andrew Melville, John
Johnston, and Patrick Melville, Professors of Theology in the University of St
Andrews, signed at end by Respondent. AI-a[*]3b, 'Theses Physicae de Ortu et
Interitu' (LI +'Corollarium'). [*]4a, set of Latin verses 'In doctissimum iuvenem D.
Tobiam Mierbekanum Antuerpianum de Ortu & Interitu Egregie disserentem',
signed at end 'Andreas Loaechius'. [*]4b, blank.
Copy: Edinburgh, Univ. Lacks [*]i. A copy in Edinburgh, Univ. is noted in the
Library catalogue of c. 1640 but cannot now be traced. A copy is included in the
Laing sale catalogue (II 1823).
Bibliographical References: Aldis 332. Baxter 953. Dickson and Edmond 299.
J. Ames and W. Herbert, Typographical Antiquities (1785-90), vol. III, p. 1521.
Note: The collation of the item presents a problem. An examination of the chain-
lines gives the impression that gathering A has been inserted within another (prob-
ably unsigned) gathering, of which the first (blank) leaf is missing.

15 MARCH 1689



THE INITIAL steps by the Faculty of Advocates to create for itself a library
were taken in 168o, and after deliberations and the acquisition of
supporters, premises and books the library was formally opened on 15
March, 1689, when Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh made the inaugural
speech in Latin, of which a translation follows. Between 168o and 1689 the
Minutes of the Faculty show that the matter of a library had been steadily
pursued and that by 1684 it was in full being, with premises, books, Curators
and a Librarian. There is thus an interval of nine years between the first
proposals in 168o to found a library and Mackenzie's opening speech in
1689, and it is difficult to fit into this background the 'quintus jam volvitur
annus' of the opening lines. Was the Speech prepared for use in 1684, held
over for some reason until 1689, delivered with suitable modification, but
printed from the original version? Or does Mackenzie, writing and speaking
in 1689, regard 1684 as the year when the Faculty's intentions had
materialized sufficiently to make it a point of origin?
The reference, towards the end, to a 'premature printing' of a catalogue
is surprising in that the first known printed catalogue of the Library
appeared in Edinburgh in 1692 with the imprint of George Mosman. No
copy of the 'prematurely' printed catalogue appears to have survived. The
inaugural Speech formed the preface of the 1692 catalogue, of which the
arrangement differs from that of the vanished version as described by
Mackenzie, since it contains several main subject divisions, of which law
books form the first, and in each division the subdivision is by sizes, arrange-
ment in the subdivisions being alphabetical according to authors' names.
The Speech appeared with similar text in three editions, one in London
in 1689, one as preface to the Catalogue of 1692, the third in vol. I of
Mackenzie's Works in 1716; there is a manuscript version in a 17th-century
hand (not Mackenzie's) in the National Library of Scotland. Detailed
information about the printed editions of the Speech will be found in the
'Bibliography of the Works of Sir George Mackenzie' by Mr F. S.
Ferguson (Edinburgh Bibliographical Society Transactions, vol. i). In form
the Speech is a not undistinguished piece of 'Latin prose'; it is vigorous in
style, and its language gives the impression that it expresses very well
what the writer meant to say. Apart from the association of the Speech
with the birth of a notable library, which has become the National Library
of Scotland, it is mainly interesting as showing the opinion of a distinguished
Scottish lawyer in the late i7th century about the value of the various

literary sources contributing to Scots law and its study. Unfortunately,
although understandably, it contains almost no material information about
the state and organization of the Library, and what it does give is difficult
to reconcile with what is found elsewhere. The extent of Mackenzie's interest
in the management of the Library may, however, be inferred from a
manuscript minute of a Committee of the Faculty, headed 'Anent the
Making a Catalogue for the Lawers Bibliotheque. 1687'. It consists of six
rules for compiling a combined catalogue and list of desiderata, and is
signed by Mackenzie and three other members of the Committee. The
method enjoined by these rules has more resemblance to that of the 1692
Catalogue than to that described in the Speech.
To annotate fully the many legal and historical allusions in the Speech
would be a lengthy work, beyond the scope of this preface. For example we
should have to consider whether Mackenzie, when he wrote about 'those
who descend [from the Bench] under sudden constraint', may have had in
mind the circumstance that several judges in Scotland suffered untimely
displacement from office within the span of his career; and the last para-
graph (which, incidentally, does not appear in the manuscript version or
in the edition of 1689) would have to be shown in its relation to the intro-
duction of Law as a subject to the curriculum at Edinburgh University.
Those concerned with library organization will note that Mackenzie
expresses a preference for first editions and works published in their authors'
lifetime. No doubt the improvement in modern editorial standards and
methods has caused book selectors in recent times to consider in a different
light the claims of first editions to such preference.
The translator and translation owe much to the kindness of the Rt Hon.
Lord Cooper, Lord Justice Clerk, who found time to read the translation
in manuscript and to make many valuable suggestions.


IT is now nearly five years, my distinguished and learned friends, since the Faculty
of Advocates decided to found and maintain out of the gifts of benefactors and the
fees of aspiring intrants to the Faculty a library equipped solely with works written
by lawyers or conducing to the study of jurisprudence. The novelty of the idea might
of itself have attracted us; for no library of this kind so far exists, firstfruits are beloved
of both God and men, things unsullied by common use compel admiration, and it is
to everyone's taste rather to be original in minor matters than to follow a lead in great
ones. Yet the founding of this library of ours arose from more weighty considerations,
and they are these.
The study of jurisprudence, impatient of rivals, demands the whole of a man, and
his energies must not be bound up in or shared with extraneous studies. It was
natural, therefore, that, lest our men of learning be seduced by any illicit attraction,
we should keep our library shelves, to which they resort, chastely devoid of works
dealing with irrelevant subjects.
Formerly, educated men of an inquiring turn of mind, even if they were wealthy,
lacked the abundance of every kind of writing which has now been assembled here with
consummate care and system. All now enjoy it in common, as men did in the golden
age; all gain unlimited instruction at no expense, and riches without inquietude. It re-
mains for us to supply only ability and application. By this auspicious act of adoption,
into our hands come all the fruits of Greek and Roman wisdom together with everything
that the riper experience of later ages has added to their discoveries, and all that the
great galaxy of the learned has made common property for the common good, they
whose talents surmounted and assiduity swept aside every obstacle, whose works can
to this day delight us with their perennial freshness, whose entire productions we
should be proud to claim as our own. For us Cujacius, Bachovius and the other workers
in this golden vein have encroached on the night hours; by their sweat and toil riches
to our heart's desire are bestowed on us.
Just as of old in the public squares of Athens and Rome those who had done the
state good service enjoyed even after death a well counterfeited immortality in statues
made to their living likeness, here too the distinguished intellects which have made
the science of law their study live on in their books, which with the careful finish of
monumental brass but with greater durability will perchance, long after Time's keen
tooth has reduced statues to nothing, be revealed to the eyes of the dread angel when
he comes to dissolve the Universe in flames. Foolish flattery, which serves the witless
for eloquence, may elaborate panegyrics shamefully acceptable to potentates and
debase marble by effigies unworthy of it; by merit alone shall we raise to ourselves
enduring monuments. We ourselves are the most effective architects of our renown
as of our fortune. Indeed derision, not honour, is the reward of him who gains reputa-
tion by purchase, not by merit; but if a man has the memorials of his glory, the marks
of his honour and the evidences of his esteem founded and fixed in minds of worth
and learning, he is blessed indeed.
Moreover the genuine glory revealed in this place as belonging to the leaders

among those of our profession will excite in frequenters of our library an emulation
healthy, not feverish, a laudable ambition, and a holy passion for truth and right.
Be it for others to mount the bench amid fawning approval; therefrom few descend
of their own will, many under sudden constraint. For us the patterns shall be Cicero,
that renowned advocate, who, as Caesar himself tells us, gained laurels greater than
any triumph, in proportion as the ability required was greater than in extending the
empire's boundaries; and the venerable Cato, that most incorruptible of mortals and
of lawyers the most sagacious, whom Virgil distinguishes with an enviable encomium,
when, after passing in review the noblest Roman leaders, he reaches a climax and
ends his list of worthies thus:
Cato gave his little senate laws.

Our library will be, too, a modern Lyceum and a new Stoa where brilliant wits will
be exercised in harmless encounters. From time to time a subject will be proposed
and discussion of it deferred for a certain period, and everyone will enrich and garnish
it with the fruits of his meditations; each shall prepare his discourse with more care
than if a large fee were to be his reward, and, esteeming the results of others' cogita-
tions as much as his own, will kindle his genius by inspiration from his fellows. In
this way whatever in the study of law is difficult will be rendered easy, and the obscure
made clear; when all unite to storm an obstacle, it cannot but be taken. From time
to time, also, a dissertation intended for diversion will relieve the austerity of the
learned disquisitions I have mentioned; and in this case, as in that of Samson and
the lion, from the strong shall come forth sweetness. To the more learned of our
brethren will be assigned the duty of expounding the true characters of authors from
among approved legal writers; but we shall be most careful not to be led astray by
those made purblind by ambition and spleen, whose only powers are those of stinging.
We consider the works of Hunnius worthy of being burned at the dutiful hands
of Bachovius like a burnt-offering, but we will not agree to the inclusion with these
of the Rationalia of Faber, since they are of use to advocates. Others of this committee
will have the task of appraising recent writers with whom no critics have yet dealt,
but their verdicts shall not be put in our records until passed by a sufficiently repre-
sentative gathering. With the aid of this examination our intellects will gain added
force, and our successors will avoid incompetent writers as they would dangerous
and rugged reefs.
The Library's law books have been divided into five divisions representing schools.
The first is that of authors dealing with Roman law; the second, of those whose
subject is Greek jurisprudence; the third, of the Feudalists; the fourth, of writers on
Canon Law; the fifth consists of writers of Practicks. These divisions are subdivided
into minor classes.
Of books on Roman law, pride of place must be given to the text itself and its
various editions, since on it both our calling and our library are based. It is a divine
achievement, which we owe more to Heaven than to Rome, vouchsafed to us on
earth to be a pattern to legislators and an arbiter among the races of men. It so
answers to the sum of man's wants as to make one think it contrived not by them but
by human nature itself, and that men were not the authors of it but mere amanuenses
working at the dictation of absolute Reason.
The second class will consist of legal writers before Justinian's time, whose entire

or fragmentary works were by the happy intervention of Providence saved from the
fate intended for them by Tribonian. These may be said to be the sources of the
text we have.
The Glossators form the third. They were the first among Latin writers to elucidate
points of law, and were followed by the Commentators, brethren of theirs, but
younger brethren; their works may be described as extended glosses, displaying
aspects of laws, investigating the methods of considering questions and making
decisions, and collating and relating the texts. There were indeed some who treated
separately of these textual discrepancies or enantiophana.
Next come the authors of Consilia, those who, being consulted on points of law,
gave their opinions not in the old style, in a few oracular utterances, but in addition
supported their view by numerous citations and arguments. For before the civil law
in Rome had come into common use in the courts, and while knowledge of it was
possessed exclusively by specialists, these with their consilia hampered its develop-
ment. But as pleaders gradually achieved a knowledge of law the specialists, their
consilia lessening in number with the diminishing demand, turned their attention
to the treatment of celebrated topics and various solutions, disputations and con-
troversies. Pleaders, too, nearly everywhere recorded in writing the court cases in
which they were engaged, but the French alone published their speeches, which were
distinguished alike for eloquence and learning; whereas the writers of controversies
have bequeathed to us only their own bald and uninteresting arguments. For this
difference the reason is that only among the French and ourselves is pleading con-
ducted in the Roman fashion, orally and at length. Consequently we have asked the
pleaders of other nations to adorn their cases with greater copiousness and elegance;
and the French to write their forensic speeches (which they call Plaidoyez) in Latin.
In this way they will assist their brethren who use in court languages other than
theirs, and, as of yore at Babylon language was thrown into confusion for man's
ruin, so by our common use of Latin that injury will be remedied. Fame nowadays is
proclaimed only in Latin, and in the brotherhood of that language all educated men
are united, revering it as the natural utterance and abode of the sciences.
At one time the body of Roman law became overlaid with philosophy, as with a
leprosy, and marvelled to find itself ranting with a strange voice about the formal and
final causes of Prescriptions; but by the aid of Greek and Latin literature after their
divinely assisted renascence, it appeared again polished by critics into something
much more admirable and finished. They, after Alciatus, Budaeus and Cujacius,
elucidated the text by comment, emendation or collation of readings, but at length,
when difficulties had been solved by their predecessors, they resorted to Probabilia,
which are collected into a class of their own. Though very many of these did more
to mutilate than to heal the body of Roman law and are too much neglected by
writers of Practicks, it is to their care that we owe the possibility of understanding
that book which alone enables us to understand the others; and the assistance to us
of their emendations has been no less than that given so wonderfully in recent times
to Natural Science by telescopes and microscopes. For, as Huber has it, the effect on
one who passes from the works of the school of Accursius and Bartolus to theirs
resembles the effect produced by translation from a musty hovel hung with cobwebs
to a glorious palace resplendent with appointments of gold and silver. The same con-
siderations prove the necessity of compiling a new commentary to supplant that of


Accursius. He indeed had reached his fortieth year before adding to his other know-
ledge that of Latin, but boldly set about his commentary-and somewhat rashly, for
neither he nor his age could grasp the force of the Latin in which was written the
Digest or of Greek, the language of most of the Constitutions of the Code and all
the Novels. Moreover he was ignorant of the history of civil law and its formulae and
of other historical aspects. Hence Cujacius and the others can find indubitable faults
in almost every page of his commentary, and the inexperience of beginners is misled
rather than instructed. Yet, granted that his failings were those of his age and not
his own (no one can see clearly in twilight), since today laws have gained in textual
purity at the hands of the critics, in consistency from the writers on enantiophana and
in bulk from the addition of decisions, it is yet reasonable that after so many centuries
the corpus of civil law should be decked out with a new commentary as with a new
dress. But the function of preparing the commentary must be entrusted not to one
man but to several, and to men moreover who are the most brilliant among legal
luminaries. Such men in their respect for the majesty of the text will not venture to
transmit anything unworthy of it to posterity.
It may be well in this new and desirable commentary to include with the Roman
laws the more notable decisions, which interpret or supplement them, of the highest
courts, written, as far as our decadent and infirm style would allow, in the manner
and with the conciseness of the Digest. In this way the decisions, which we now read
with a drowsiness which grows as we continue, will unite in one corpus, as it were,
with Roman law. We can hardly believe that the supreme legal authorities of Paris
or among ourselves, enlightened by the experience of so many centuries, should be
inferior in ability to a single Roman praetor; the more so since the praetors had
not been informed by the acumen of Papinian and the industry of Ulpian, as our
benches are today.
Writers of Paratitla form another class; with the miniaturist's art they have dis-
played to us the image of Roman law illuminated in its true light.
Another class is that of compilers of repertories; with them are included those who
have produced general conclusions, thesauri, common opinions, indexes, or lexicons.
These are like storehouses for the jurisconsult, in which mere slaves spend themselves
in toil.
To the last class, in a watertight compartment, we have to refer Vigelius and the
other Methodists, Systematicists and Syntagmaticists, who, seeing themselves fore-
stalled in all avenues to fame by their predecessors, cast civil law in a different mould.
But, since the learner must approach Roman law according to its proper method,
his labours rather than his knowledge were increased by their efforts. This effect was
achieved, too, by those whose ampliatur decimo tertio, et limitatur decimo nono
inspired their readers with disgust.
The second main division comprises those who were responsible for establishing
or elucidating Greek or Graeco-Roman jurisprudence. Consequently writers on Greek
jurisprudence ('a tribe that vies with Rome's renowned sons') are represented on our
shelves. The dawn of jurisprudence first broke over Athens and Sparta, and the
Romans, lighted by the nascent rays, were enabled by their mature experience to
attain to Law's crowning achievement, so that among them Justice was glorious at
her highest. But after Rome began to decline, more by internal decadence than by
assault from without, the glory of the Law departed with the lawyers, and, after

Roman law had for six hundred years worn a Greek aspect, by an inversion of the order,
it set at length in the East. For in Constantinople after the transference of imperial
authority from Rome, Roman law, though lacking its Roman precision, was in force.
Law's every age is pleasant to contemplate; and although in its Athenian infancy
its utterance was hesitant and in its burdensome Byzantine senility it began to dote,
it is yet profitable to know what were among the early Greeks the first promptings
of rational nature, and what right reason ordained and held to the end among the
men of Constantinople. Perhaps there can be found no more rational commentaries
on the Roman Digest and the Byzantine Institutions than the Greek translation in
the Basilics, and the Greek paraphrase of the Institutions, made by Theophilus.
These were produced in the very century in which was wrought the Corpus Juris,
and could give ready guidance concerning, and insight into, the intentions of the
compilers in their arrangement of that work, which will, please God, at length be
issued in a correct and enlarged form to the public advantage.
The third division is that of the Feudalists, whose text put together by a barbarian
people in a barbarous age smacks of its barbarous origin. Roman law in all its parts
breathes Roman freedom, a freedom which, while they desired it for themselves, they
granted to other nations. But Feudal law has as its basis service or vassalage, and to
the originators of feudal law service was the reward of merit. This law, nevertheless,
after the decease, or rather the eclipse, of Roman law, took firm hold and had the
effect of blunting the capacities of the peoples born to its yoke; but together with
Roman law restored to its former state, as with a divine brother, it now holds sway
nearly everywhere and has its own interpreters. These may be classified similarly and
have enriched the primitive text with most learned commentaries, consilia, contro-
versies and decisions.
Writers on Canon law form the fourth division, and, since Canon law, except for
its Gothic style, is a mere copy of Roman law, its interpreters can be sorted into the
same subdivisions. One must be added, consisting of the Casuists whose art consists
of ensnaring souls, professing to serve them but anxious to dominate. We have
however conformed with custom and a desire to avoid gaps in our collection by
including some specimens of these authors, so that our members may know as well
what to shun as what to seek.
The fifth division contains Practicks, in which is found the array of the statutes
of kingdoms and commonwealths, which we have studied with the same care as if
we had been subject to them. When, either in framing laws or forming decisions,
differences of opinion arise in our legislatures or courts, jurists must inquire into the
views held in such cases by foreign nations. The judgment of an entire nation has
more weight than that of an individual authority.
Then come those who have put on record the customary law of their countries.
Possibly these two allied subjects, Statutes and Custom, law written and unwritten,
can be merged in one class, though for courtesy's sake each must be given its own
place. Those who have made glosses, commentaries or observations on these statutes
and customs form a third class.
A fourth consists of those who have collected the Decisions of each Supreme Court.
I loathe and avoid the common herd of Decisions, which fear of authority has extorted
or treacherous gold has bought, and also those given carelessly by uninterested
judges. Yet the liberal mind should not feel wearied by the repetition of what is

wholesome, as is now the way, nor ought the instructive to breed distaste. I should
like to see, embodied in these reports, the arguments and rationes decidendi set out at
length, the reporters thus assuming the function now of advocate, now of judge. We
could wish that the Germans, when in productions of this or of other kinds they are
setting forth the circumstances of a case or disputed clauses, should not use their own
language, but Latin, that royal and triumphant tongue. As it is, when the nature of
a case is concealed from us, all the rest is rendered useless.
Modesty bids us assign the final division to the writers on our Scottish municipal
law. Their numbers are small for the reason that the Scottish character finds it more
natural to express in forensic speeches and judgments what might have been written,
than to put their speeches and judgments into literary form.
There are, too, authors of indeterminate ascription who can be assigned either to
the interpreters of civil or to those of municipal law. Chief of them are the collators
of Mosaic Law, Canon law or the law of any nation with Roman law. In place,
however, of these collations which are now excessively swollen with repetition of
everything that Roman or indigenous law provides in clearer and ampler form, let
us have only a few tables showing the laws and constitutions added by each nation
to Roman law, together with the arguments in favour of the additions. These will
afterwards be made into a volume and will form for the community of nations a
fountainhead of laws which they require. The juridical body too would welcome a
single volume showing at a glance in adjacent columns points of discrepancy among
different nations in respect of their laws; and another providing an unrestricted
examination of these to find which approach most closely to the standard set by
The class of indeterminate authors will contain the writers of textbooks, those
who have brought together all the separate pronouncements of the text, critics, com-
mentators, national statutes or decisions. At the present time these authors attract
and almost occupy the attention of all readers. On account of their number they alone
have been arranged in alphabetical order according to the subject of each treatise.
That ocean is one where wreck is more common than fair voyages; let ill-found craft
beware, which cannot touch bottom with their soundings, for which even skirting its
shore is not without danger.
The writers of Decisions, who belong not only to the territories where Roman law
is in force but also to others which draw on its resources to enrich their own, can
be placed either among civilians or among writers on municipal law. Some writers,
like the moral philosophers, have indulged in speculations on natural law, which are,
one may say, nihil ad Edictum Praetoris. Others, like the theologians, have spewed
forth whole volumes on justice and law; they, since their treatment was from the
Reformed viewpoint, should not be classed with Canonists. Others, like the political
philosophers, have produced many trifles on natural law and public law; their qualities
entitle them to a place among the eccentrics. Of them few have, as the facts show,
gained distinction in the service of the republic of letters, nor are they sound nor able
to be read with honour and profit. All these writings indeed are rather derivable from
civil law, than it from them.
Three branches of learning are the handmaidens of Jurisprudence, namely, History,
Criticism and Rhetoric; for which reason our catalogue abounds in Greek and Roman
historians. From them the sources and development of laws, as also the abilities of

their makers, can be discerned. From study of the poets, too, and the other classic
writers can be laid bare the force and significance of words commonly used in law;
and they furnish the best substitute for commentaries on that most copious work,
De Verborum Significatione. Because the ancient commentators were almost entirely
strangers to the sciences of history and criticism, they inflicted some unpleasant out-
rages on Jurisprudence, the source of their glory and ours; and without the aid of
these sciences the keen intellects, the learning and the skill of Antonius Faber and
the other leaders of the Tribunales could not have advanced them to their pinnacle
of renown.
All scholars cultivate the language in which is transmitted the text of their par-
ticular field: theologians study Hebrew, doctors Greek, and lawyers Latin, especially
the Digest, that well of Latin undefiled. Laurentius Valla compares it to the Tarpeian
stronghold, which, though the rest of the city was captured and burned, not only
stood alone inviolate but was the means through which the whole city and dominions
were regained. So too, he says, those books were preserved pure and undefiled, while
all else, overlaid by the impure fungus of barbarism, lay abject; and by their frequent
perusal the Roman tongue, always in some degree preserved and honoured, soon
regained its dignity and richness.
Since eloquence is the best mouthpiece of man's mind and therefore of law, the
whole tribe of Greek and Latin orators here cast their illumination upon us. Theirs
it is with eloquence to embellish truth and to fortify jurisprudence; their lofty talents
pronounce nothing mean, and although they seek only to inspire in us conviction, our
admiration is none the less aroused.
We are not unaware that this premature printing of the catalogue may be censured
as resembling the abandonment of an infant; but in this matter we have looked to
utility, not praise. The production was necessary in order to give to both judges and
advocates access to these oracles which should guide our conceptions of the just and
the right. A new edition in five years' time will remedy the matter.
We may hope that seekers after fame will richly endow this fane of Themis with
their gifts; our benefactors may be sure that in this way their generosity will live
longer than in monuments of other kinds, since what is founded on literature and
eloquence is surely immortal. Therefore on the deaths of their owners let lawyers'
private libraries flow, like streams to the ocean, into this library common to us all.
Such a legacy will not conflict with duty, nor shall we thus be despoiling the heritage of
successors, but, instead of books small in number and possibly also in worth, we shall
gather for them a large and excellent collection. In this matter as in others it is often
true that nothing impoverishes like possession, which rather straitens than endows us.
We have sought with care for first rather than later editions, on the assumption
that the author was himself concerned with the first, and that in later editions errors,
especially in citations, must necessarily creep in. The same consideration leads us
to prefer works produced in their author's lifetime; one cannot be sure whether
posthumous works have received the finishing touches. This is but too plain in the
works of Cujacius, where things spuriously scraped together from common sources
are, it would seem, foisted on us as his own productions; things unripe for publication
did certainly find their way in. However, since important authors (and of them this is
particularly true) run into several editions, we must find a place at once for the first
editions, the latest, and the more notable ones.

Our rather sumptuous style of binding is a fault to be forgiven in us who venerate
Jurisprudence and worship her as queen among sciences. The part of the lawgiver
is to rule, and it befits rulers to be resplendent with gold and richly wrought ornament;
we thought it right to bestow gold on the books that win it for us.
My most learned and eminent brethren, eschew whatever is less than divine and
briefer than eternity; have heed for no other fee than good report, the records of
which are inferior only to those of the book of life. It would be nobler to rule the
universe by reasoned justice than by possession of a sceptre; and the wise man of law
would be far from caring more for the transitory affairs of clients than for his own
immortal soul.
There remains only the duty of rendering the warmest possible thanks to our
illustrious Senators under whose protection our library has grown, and whose Decisions
(which faithfully reveal to posterity the characters of judges) we shall in this Par-
nassus, this bosom of the Muses, crown with the honour which they so well deserve.
Nor have we any doubt that the growth in the number of those using the Library
for legal studies will be accompanied by an increase in the attentive interest shown
towards it and the users' privileges by the Senators. Such interest was indeed especially
present to the mind of our great Justinian, when he commended to legal students
the study of law on the grounds that their prescribed course, when completed, would
enable them successfully to conduct their country's affairs in the departments to be
entrusted to them. It was thus that the Roman state flourished, not so much by the
valour of its armies, as by the justice of its laws. We at least have to the best of our
powers advanced the study of law and have time and again expressed our opinion
concerning the desirability of having professors of law with a view to lessening for
parents the cost of their sons' education, and the necessity of having such chairs
to eliminate errors from both our public and our private law. But such appoint-
ments, so much desired by us, and once essayed by our distinguished Senators in
King James's College, we leave to the serious consideration of those who govern
the realm.





WHEN THE FACULTY OF ADVOCATES presented their Library to the nation in
1925, they gave with it a large and famous collection of manuscripts.
The following account of what has been acquired since is intended to give
a notion of the kind of material which the Library now contains, either
as its own property or as a more or less permanent loan. Donors and lenders
will not be named; it is enough to say that, with very few exceptions, the
Department of Manuscripts owes every acquisition to private generosity.
The collection is fundamentally Scottish, relating to Scotland or Scots-
men, but the activities of the latter outside their own country have opened
the door to much material from a wider field, and a stimulating leaven is
provided by some accessions having no Scottish interest whatever.

Except for the charters, the earliest of which is of the twelfth century,
the story of Scotland is first presented by Wyntoun's Orygynale Cronykil,
of the early fifteenth century, in a copy made before that century was out.
The Perth Psalter, produced late in the same century, has the interest of
being one of the few Scottish liturgical manuscripts to survive. The cele-
brated Morton Papers lead in a procession of royal and illustrious persons
which begins in 1474 and continues all the way to 1730.
Among the more interesting documents of the sixteenth century, other
than those in the Morton Papers, are the instructions given to the French
envoys sent to Mary of Guise in 1548. Henri II gives orders in 1550 for
the accommodation of Mary, Queen of Scots, at Mantes, and Maitland of
Lethington writes in 1562 of her chagrin at the postponement of her proposed
interview with Queen Elizabeth. The operations of the Scottish Mint are
illustrated by a report on the coins issued from 1588 to 1590 and by a treatise
of 1626. The ambassadors sent by James VI to the Protestant princes in
1590, in their account of their doings, do not confine themselves to diplo-
matic conversations, but describe courts and personalities and the interesting
sights which they have seen in England, Denmark, various German states
and Holland. The century ends with an Italian report on Scotland and the
chances of purging the country of heresy.

In this century we first come on the incorporated trades, in their series
of records, most of which run on for several hundred years-the Candle-
makers of Edinburgh, 1517-1884, the Tailors of Canongate and North
Leith,'i546-i886, and the Mariners of Ayr, 1581 -1757. These are followed
in later centuries by the Glovers and Skinners of Kelso, 1631-1856, the
Seamen of Prestonpans, 1668-1747, the Fisherrow Sailors, 1669-1889, and
various societies of Chapmen in the shires of Stirling, Clackmannan and
Fife, 1706-1858.
The intellectual activities of Scotsmen abroad and at home, in this
century and early in the next, are represented by the lectures on Aristotle
given by Robert Balfour at Bordeaux from 1587 to 1590, Alexander King's
treatise on maritime law, written about 1590, the writings of William
Fowler and Drummond of Hawthornden and the sermons and prophetical
letters of the Rev. John Welsh.
Abundant information is given about public affairs in the seventeenth
century by several great collections of papers-of Robert Baillie, in an early
copy; of the Dukes of Hamilton, especially the third; of the Duke of Lauder-
dale, including a volume of letters written to him by Archbishops Sharp
and Burnet; and of the Marquess of Tweeddale.
Charles I figures chiefly in a ceremonial connection. He lays down orders
for the office of the Great Wardrobe; the Director of Music of the Chapel
Royal arranges for services in Holyrood; and the preparations for his visit
to Edinburgh in 1633, with the form of his coronation, are detailed in full.
Later in his reign, the siege of Edinburgh Castle of 1640 is described by
one of the garrison, and in a letter of 1643 the King protests that he will
never retract any of the civil or religious liberties which he has granted to
his Scottish subjects.
Operations against the Covenanters are the subject of military orders
and letters of Lord Ross, Dalzell of Binns and other leaders of the Govern-
ment forces. The current account of Bothwell Brig is criticized by one of
the combatants, who may be John Balfour, known as Burley. The sufferings
of one party are set forth in a Western Covenanter's account of his examina-
tion and imprisonment and in the narrative of Robert Landess, Minister of
Blantyre, while the treatment received by the Episcopalian clergy at the
Revolution is described in the history of a fund instituted for their relief.
In the Highlands, the papers of the Campbells of Inverawe tell of the
garrisoning of Lochaber and the maintenance of law and order in general,
while those of the Earls of Argyll deal, among other things, with their com-
mission to settle the west, 1678-9, and the rising of 1685. The life of the
east is depicted in the Culloden Papers-the affairs of Inverness and the
neighbourhood, trade, local and with France, and the effects of the wars
and the Revolution.

A book of the Darien Company contains letters of its agents in London,
Holland and Hamburg of 1696 and 1697 on trade and the building of ships.
The voyage of the Company's ship Unicorn from Kirkcaldy to Caledonia
Bay in 1698 is described from day to day in a letter of a passenger. A
backwash of the unhappy business is seen in the papers in the case of
Captain Green of the Worcester, 1705-7.
The ordinary life of the country comes more and more into view. The
administration of a town may be studied in the Kelso Burgh Court book,
1647-1745; of a diocese, in the letters addressed to the Bishop of Galloway,
1679-85; of an industrial concern, in the records of the Scots White Paper
Manufactory, 1694-1707. The lives of individuals are presented in diaries,
such as that of a country laird like Drummond of Hawthornden, the poet's
son, 1657-9, and those of the Ministers of Penpont and Borrowstounness,
both of which run into the beginning of the next century. It is now that the
collections of family papers begin to make a contribution to our knowledge
which steadily increases in volume. In addition to what they tell of family
history, agriculture and the vicissitudes of estates, they often refer to public
events, and almost always give information on local affairs and the life and
manners of the time. Most of them range over more than one century, and
some extend almost to our own day. They introduce us to all manner of
societies and districts-to country gentry like the Cuninghames of Robert-
land in Ayrshire, the Scotts of Raeburn on the Border and various families
in Angus, from the seventeenth century on; to the Lundies, Ministers of
Kelso, and the Douglases, Ministers of Jedburgh and Galashiels, who
appear in the eighteenth; to the Highlands with the Macdonalds of Kinloch-
moidart; and to Morayshire and many fields abroad with the soldier family
of Brown.
The literature of the age is largely religious, consisting of sermons,
'testimonies', diaries of spiritual experiences and the correspondence of
pious circles. These continue into the eighteenth century, and so does the
satirical verse, chiefly Jacobite, which now becomes plentiful. But there are
other signs of intellectual activity. On law there are many treatises. The
Advocates' Library, in its first catalogue, of 1683, and in early papers
relating to its affairs, is seen to have been first and foremost a law library.
The teaching and administration of the law bulk largely in the papers of
John Spottiswoode, the Advocate. There are further evidences of humane
interests in the poems of George Lauder, in Robert Melvill's treatises on
Oriental languages, in Sir George Mackenzie's poem, 'My Lady Carnagie's
Cabinet' (a version of his 'Ccelia's Country-house') and in the antiquarian
notes and compilations of the industrious Robert Mylne.
For the eighteenth century, much material is to be found in the enormous
collection of the Mackenzies of Delvine, a distinguished dynasty of Edin-

burgh lawyers. It comprises not only the Mackenzies' own papers, but those
of the many families, mostly Highland, for whom they acted or with whom
they were connected. While they are chiefly interesting for the light which
they throw on family history and on the life of the Highlands, they give a
good deal of information about public events. Still more is furnished by the
Culloden Papers, already mentioned, especially those of Lord President
Forbes; the matters of which they treat include the successive Jacobite
attempts, the settlement of the Highlands and Highland affairs in general,
the Malt Riots, the Porteous Mob, the revenue and the manufactures which
the Lord President strove to promote.
The rising of 1715 comes into the Delvine Papers and those of the
Erskine-Murray family, besides other letters and reports. Of the mass of
material relating to the Forty-five-narratives, correspondence, official
figures, pamphlets and verse-it is enough to mention as examples the
original manuscript of Prince Charles Edward's proclamation to the British
people, written in May, 1745, a letter sent by Cluny Macpherson to the Lord
President immediately after his capture by the Prince's army, papers on the
situation in Edinburgh before and during the Highland occupation, the
inquiry into the surrender of Fort Augustus in 1746 and the letters received
by the Lord Advocate from all quarters throughout the rising. The Jacobite
movement is further illustrated by a memorandum on intrigues carried on
in Sweden, 1719 (supplemented by Culloden letters on the danger of a
Swedish invasion), a report on the state of feeling in the Highlands in 1724,
an account by Flora Macdonald of her dealings with Prince Charles
Edward and her subsequent career and the correspondence of the Mac-
Gregors of Balhaldie, which give an insight into the lives and doings
of Jacobites at home and in exile down into the years when their cause
had clearly become hopeless. After the rising, the letter-books of the
Commanders-in-Chief in Scotland from 1747 to 1753 tell of the administra-
tion of the Highlands, the enforcement of repressive measures and the
building of roads. The state of that region and the continuance of dis-
affection there are the subject of a report of about 1750. Finally, an echo of
the affair is caught in the papers relating to the Appin murder.
Other glimpses of Highland life are given by letters in which Macdonald
of Sleat complains of accusations of having kidnapped Skye men for ship-
ping to America, 1739; in the letters of John Macpherson, Minister of Sleat,
to his brother-ministers, the Macaulays, on church affairs, 1743-64; and in
the journals of tours of general survey made in the Highland and north-
eastern shires in 1767 and 1771.
Trade and industry now come to the fore, in the books and papers of the
collieries and salt-works of Bogie, 1705-63, of an Edinburgh merchant
trading with the Continent, 1712-19, of a Leith shipmaster, 1720-33, of the

Lorn Furnace Company, founded by Furness ironmasters with works at
Bunawe, 1752-1813, and of the Carron Company, 1762 -88. The Forth and
Clyde Canal is the subject of correspondence and papers, 1762 -7, and James
Watt reports on the possibility of driving a canal through Strathmore in
1771. A memorandum on a Berwickshire estate, 1758-84, is evidence of the
growing interest in agricultural improvement.
The affairs of the Episcopal Church may be traced from 1691 to 1778
in the Delvine Papers and those of the Spottiswoodes. Attempts are made
to cope with the moral and material condition of the capital in the journal
and minutes of the Society for Endeavouring Reformation of Manners in
Edinburgh, 1699-1751, and proposals for cleaning the streets and closes,
1734-7. The books of two Edinburgh clubs-the Monthly Club, which
catered for the nobility and gentry, 1783-1803, and the Cape Club,
patronized by smaller fry, 1764-1841-offer an introduction to some of the
social life of the day. A member of the latter sodality is brought more par-
ticularly to our notice by the papers relating to the arrest and trial of Deacon
The touring of Scotland begins, and becomes more and more the habit
in this century and the next. Many of the journals of the sometimes shocked
tourists yield interesting information about the districts visited: industries,
manners, living conditions and traces of folklore which may since have
In literature, the sermons and satires fall off, and the great age sets in.
Most of the larger figures and many lesser lights make at least an appear-
ance. A collection of poems of the Rev. John Skinner, many of them
unpublished, must be among the latest attempts in the old satirical manner.
Thomas Ruddiman is represented by business papers and writings which
are in great part polemical. Of Allan Ramsay there are many poems,
finished or in draft. The letters of David Hume, his notes for his History,
and his corrected proofs of the Four Dissertations, which include those 'Of
Suicide' and 'Of the Immortality of the Soul', suppressed in publication,
have a suitable entourage in the correspondence of his friends, among whom
are the author of Douglas, Jupiter Carlyle and Hugh Blair. This last stands
convicted, by a student's notes of his lectures, of criticizing and parodying
the style of Dr Johnson. Among the papers of Principal Robertson are
letters of such representatives of the age as Gibbon, Voltaire and Horace
Walpole. To this age, too, Henry Mackenzie belongs, whose correspondence,
poems, and essays begin in 1763, although he flourishes well into the
succeeding century. Meanwhile, the records of the Literary Society of
Glasgow from 1764 to 1779 offer a necessary reminder that Edinburgh had
no monopoly of culture. The copies which Burns made of his letters and
poems for his friend Glenriddell are supplemented by letters and poems as

he first wrote them, and by correspondence, 1797 -1819, on Currie's publica-
tion of his life and works.
In the course of the eighteenth century, more and more news comes from
outside Scotland. As yet, it is chiefly military and naval. The Continental
wars can be followed in part in the orders of march, battle, etc. of Marl-
borough's campaigns, 1704-11I, in the order-book of an officer serving under
Ormonde, 1712, in Culloden papers relating to the war from 1742 to 1744
and in a narrative of Wade's campaign of 1744, which includes copies
of the charges brought against him, with his answers. The log of a
naval surgeon, 1778-82, describes service in the West Indies, the loss of the
Royal George and Howe's relief of Gibraltar. Colonel John Drinkwater's
'Reminiscences, military, naval and political' cover his service, chiefly in
the Mediterranean, from the siege of Gibraltar to the battle of Cape St
At the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, the
scene is no longer purely Scottish. While almost every aspect of Scottish life
is fully displayed in the papers of the first and second Viscounts Melville-
politics, administration, justice, revenue, trade, fisheries-they embrace the
affairs of the whole kingdom-measures against sedition and invasion at
home, the conduct of the war and foreign policy abroad, Irish affairs and
the administration of the Navy and Army-and extend to government,
war and trade in India, Malaysia and China. Foreign affairs are the subject
of much of the correspondence of Sir Robert Liston of Foulis. The letters
written by Sir Gilbert Elliot as Viceroy of Corsica describe the situation in
the island from 1794 to 1796. The very large collection of correspondence,
orders, logs and other papers of the Cochranes, who served in Egypt, 18ol,
at Ferrol, 1804-5, and in the Leeward Islands and on the North American
station, 1805 -16, give much information about historic events and the daily
life of the Royal Navy. Among records of the steps taken in Scotland to
meet invasion, are lists of subscriptions raised in Berwickshire for the pur-
pose from 1798 to 1802, and a memorandum on the state of the Scottish
defences in 1803, with suggestions for their improvement.
The predominant figure in Scottish literature at this time is Sir Walter
Scott, and he holds a proportionate place in the Department of Manuscripts.
Few men of the past are brought so closely before us in their daily life as
Scott is by this great collection of his original writings, the materials which
he accumulated on the many subjects which interested him, his corre-
spondence, the ledgers and letter-books of his business connections and the
reminiscences of his friends. In attendance on him, come all the other
members of the Scott Olympus, be they as unimportant as Tom Purdie;
while celebrities from far and wide appear in the many volumes of letters
received by Scott, and in the correspondence of Constable and Robert

Cadell. Of the poems of James Hogg, many are unpublished or differ from
the printed version. The letters of John Leyden tell of conditions in the
India of the early nineteenth century as well as of life among the literary
young men of Edinburgh. The new interest in the past is revealed in the
papers of John Pinkerton and the minutes of the Bannatyne Club. The
writings of Marjory Fleming, many letters of Thomas Campbell and the
correspondence, songs and journals of Lady Nairne help to fill a picture of
the age to which several appearances on the part of the Earl of Buchan add
the necessary finishing touch.
In the nineteenth century, church and university affairs are the subject of
some, but by no means all, of the papers of Principal Lee. The progress of
agriculture may be studied in the minutes of a Farmer Society in Angus,
1803-14, and in two accounts of Mull, 18oi01 and 1828. That Greenock was
a scene of social and intellectual activity is evident from the correspondence
conducted or collected by A. P. Paton, 1816-1903. Aberdeenshire families
and individuals are depicted, often caustically, in the diaries of Sir Alex-
ander Bannerman of Elsick, 1824-39. Politics are the main burden of the
letters addressed to Alexander Russel of the Scotsman from 1839 to 1876.
The papers of John Stuart Blackie help us to recreate Victorian Edinburgh;
and further light is thrown on the age by the papers of the Russells of
Ashiesteel and numerous diaries.
The Cochrane papers continue their story of the Navy and its doings
down to 1853, the scene having shifted to Newfoundland, the East Indian
station and Portsmouth. Mungo Park describes his progress on his last
journey; letters of David Livingstone give an account of some of his travels.
Soldiers' letters and journals speak of life and warfare in India, from
Wellesley's campaigns of 1802 and 1803 to the end of the century.
In literature, the Epigoni of the reign of Scott play their part-Lockhart,
Galt, Cockburn, De Quincey, Christopher North and all the correspondents
of Blackwood-and in their turn give place to, or develop into, Victorians.
The papers of Thomas Carlyle and his wife vie in bulk with those of Scott;
like them, they give admission to the intimacy of a circle, albeit of some-
what different Olympians. Various collections contain letters of a horde of
writers and other celebrities, and the cultured and scientific worlds of the
later nineteenth century and the early twentieth are portrayed in the
admirable caricatures of John A. Hipkins.

A few subjects which so transcend time that they cannot be conveniently
fitted into a chronological scheme remain to be mentioned.
Ballads and songs from different parts of Scotland are to be found in the
collections of Scott, Thomas Wilkie, Robert Pitcairn, C. K. Sharpe and

George Riddell. Wilkie also supplies notes on the folklore of the Border.
Stories and beliefs of Sutherland are set down by Charlotte Dempster, and
the collection of the Rev. Charles Moncreiff Robertson contains a mass of
information on Gaelic philology and on Highland folklore, topography and
The chief acquisitions in Gaelic are a translation, made in the seventeenth
century, of the Lilium Medicinae of Bernard de Gordon of Montpellier, part
of an early treatise on grammar, poems of Rob Donn Mackay, stated to
have been taken down from the poet's recitation, and a collection of pro-
verbs made by James McIntyre early in the nineteenth century.
In the collections of music formed by John Glen and Alexander Wood
Inglis there are many old airs in manuscript. The former contains Margaret
Sinkler's Book, 1710o; the latter, material for a history of military music.
Among many music-books of the eighteenth century is the Cumming
Musical Manuscript of 1723, the earliest known collection of Scottish violin-
music. The airs of ballads and other old Scots tunes are preserved in the
collections of Andrew Blaikie, 1824, Lady John Scott and George Riddell.
Pipe-music is to be found in several collections of pibrochs and in a modern
copy of the Nether Lorn Canntaireachd of Colin Campbell, Ardmaddy, of
the eighteenth century.

This list is not, of course, exhaustive. Possibly it is not even truly repre-
sentative: important documents may have received no mention while others
of little consequence have been described. The masses of material still to
be explored may yield unexpected treasures. But enough has been said to
show that these new accessions are worthy of a place on the shelves beside
the noble assemblage which already occupies them.


PRINTED BOOKS have been coming into the National Library of Scotland
for twenty years in the same ways, if not at the same easy pace, as
they came into the Advocates' Library in the eighteenth century.
Since 1709 the main source of supply has been the Copyright Act, which
in 1945 brought in nearly 40,000 items (books, pamphlets, periodicals,
music, maps and official publications), about o10,000ooo less than in any of the
years just before the War. David Hume the philosopher, who was Keeper
from 1752 to 1757, would have been dismayed by such bulk and variety,
and still more by the growth of directories, timetables, parliamentary and
non-parliamentary papers and all the other biblia abiblia that are now
preserved, to say nothing of the thousands of thrillers that every year have
to be catalogued and placed. Most of these things existed, at least in embryo,
in Hume's day, but they were not always regarded as worth keeping, with
the result that the National Library had, for instance, hardly any chapbooks
till it received a large collection by bequest. Whatever unconsidered trifles
the twentieth century may now be leaving to be snapped up by the twenty-
second, it has seen one far from trivial development in British copyright.
Works of imaginative literature by American authors from Washington
Irving onwards have often been published almost simultaneously in the
United States and Britain; but until quite recent times the same has not been
true of American works of scholarship. Especially in the last twenty years,
however, a work issued by one of the larger American university presses has
as often as not appeared over here with an imprint that brings it within the
reach of our copyright laws. Thus the National Library and its fellow benefi-
ciaries are now automatically enriched by many American contributions to
the study of literature, language, art, music, history and bibliography.
Not that these are the only subjects covered by copyright, but they are
those in which the Library is primarily interested and in which it has always
tried to supplement its statutory accessions by the purchase of foreign books.
Thanks to private generosity, it was possible from the day when the Library
was handed over to the nation to buy on a scale that had been out of the
reach of the Faculty of Advocates for a hundred years and so to revive and
expand the glories of that eighteenth-century heyday when the Library had
garnered the best of contemporary European thought and learning. Nearly
all the books mentioned on the following pages have been bought from
295 2 P

private funds or else presented. Hardly any have been bought from govern-
ment funds. All are modern, but that does not mean that the Trustees of the
National Library have limited their purchases to such books, any more than
Sir George Mackenzie or the Curators of the Advocates' Library ever
limited theirs to books printed not too long before the Library was founded.
But the incunabula acquired have been fully described elsewhere, and
most readers of these Transactions have some idea of the kinds of Scottish
and other books of antiquarian interest, of later periods, that are bought.
Some may not be so well aware of the modern tools provided simultaneously
for research, and even an article strung together almost entirely from lists
of the more important titles may succeed in conveying to their minds a fairly
sharp impression of the main trends of European scholarship in our time.
The most pressing need in the Reading Room in 1925 was up-to-date
foreign works of reference, of which many have now been acquired-for
instance, the great encyclopaedias, Larousse, Brockhaus, Meyer, Bolshaya
sovielskaya entziklopediya and the magnificently produced and illustrated
Enciclopedia italiana. Especially since the revision of the general catalogue
of printed books was begun in 1933, it has been important to have the
catalogues of foreign libraries such as the Bibliotheque Nationale and the
Preussische Staatsbibliothek. The Library bases its revised catalogue on
that of the British Museum, of which it takes three copies, one by copyright
and two by subscription. Along with these great national catalogues may
be mentioned some of the national bibliographies, Sabin for the United
States of America, Palau for Spain and Tchemerzine for France, as well as
the dictionaries of national biography of France, Belgium, Holland, the
Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Germany, Austria and Poland and
S. Wininger, Grossejiidische National-Biographie (7 vol., Cerniuti, 1925-
1936). Among the numerous linguistic dictionaries the most important are
J.-B. de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye, Dictionnaire hislorique de l'ancien
langagefranfois (io vol., 1875-82), F. Godefroy, Diclionnaire de l'ancienne
langue francaise el de tous ses dialectes du Ixe au XVe siecle (Io vol.,
nouveau tirage', 1937-8), E. Huguet, Dictionnaire de la languefrancaise du
seizieme siecle (1925- ), the Woordenboek der nederlandsche taal edited by
M. de Vries, L. A. te Winkel and others (1882- ), the Swedish Academy's
Ordbok ofver svenska sprdket (1893- ), V. Dahlerup, Ordbog over del
danske sprog (1919- ) and the ill-fated Diccionario histdrico (1933- ) of
the Spanish Academy.
In the field of literature the first aim has been to acquire complete sets of
the great national collections of texts such as the Bibliothek des literarischen
Vereins in Stuttgart (1843- ), Classiques franfais du moyen dge (1911- ),
Bibliolheek der nederlandse letteren (1939- ) and Islenzk fornrit (1933- )
and also the best modern editions of individual authors. From America have

been purchased H. C. Lodge's twelve-volume 'Constitutional' edition (1904)
of Alexander Hamilton as well as two outstanding editions of British authors
published there and not republished here-the Private papers of James
Boswell in the possession of Colonel Isham, edited with consummate skill
and grace by Geoffrey Scott, succeeded by Mr F. A. Pottle (19 vol., 1928-
1937), and the 'Hampstead' edition of the poetical works and other writings
of Keats edited by Harry Buxton Forman and revised by Maurice Buxton
Forman (8 vol., 1938-9), the final form of the lifelong labours of father and
son. There has been a specially strong representation of French literature in
critical editions-Malebranche by D. Roustan and P. Schrecker (1938- ),
Merimee by P. Trahard and E. Champion (1927- ), Sainte-Beuve's
Port-Royal by R.-L. Doyon and C. Marchesne (o10 vol., 1926-32) and his
correspondence by J. Bonnerot (1935- ), Stendhal by E. Champion and
P. Arbalet (1913- ), Flaubert in the definitive edition (22 vol., 1910-33)
and Daudet in the 'Ne varietur' edition (20 vol., 1929-3 1), as well as Barbey
d'Aurevilly, Villiers de l'Isle-Adam, Mallarm6, Proust, Valdry and Gide.
The library of an Edinburgh collector, from which numerous purchases were
made towards the end of the War, when the supply of modern foreign books
had almost dried up, turned out to be specially strong in these and less well-
known French authors old and new. No other European literature has yet
been covered so fully. Italy is represented by the national editions of
Petrarch (1926- ) and Dante (1932- ) published at Florence, the latter
by the Societh Dantesca Italiana; and Russia by B. M. Eichenbaum's
edition of Lermontov (5 vol., 1935-7) and by the Pushkin published by the
Academy of Sciences in Moscow (1935- ), to be completed in eighteen
volumes, of which five have been received. German authors, accessible in
Edinburgh University Library in a collection that has been formed by long
labour and careful taste and could not now be rivalled, have so far been added
to the National Library only in plain texts such as those published by the
Insel Verlag. Spanish, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish have hardly
been touched at all. It is desirable that at least the great Hispanic library
of the Marquis de Astorga purchased by the Faculty of Advocates in 1826
at the instance of John Gibson Lockhart and the fine Icelandic collection
should now be supplemented by extensive purchases of modern texts.
Special studies at Edinburgh University have naturally influenced the
growth of the National Library, and in no field is this influence more clearly
seen than in that of language. The collection of linguistic atlases includes
the pioneer work on France and Corsica by J. Gillidron and E. Edmont
(1902-20) as well as several of its successors-Italy and South Switzerland
by K. Jaberg and J. Jud (1928- ), Rumania by S. Puscariu (1938- ), the
Netherlands by G. G. Kloeke (1939- ) and New England by H. Kurath
(1939- ). Mention has already been made of foreign dictionaries. Among

dictionaries produced in Britain but acquired by purchase as opposed
to copyright may be singled out S. E. Mann, A historical Albanian
and English dictionary (1496-1938) (1938- ) and The Scottish national
dictionary (1931- ). A succession of workers on the latter enterprise have
been accommodated in an alcove off the Reading Room, containing a
section of Scottish literature, specially formed for their purposes.
The wealth of acquisitions in the field of the fine arts is explained partly
by the gift of a collection relating to Leonardo and partly by purchases
made to meet requests from the University and the various museums and
galleries in Edinburgh. Histories of art include that by A. Michel (8 vol.,
1907-29), the Propylden-Kunstgeschichte (1923- ) and R. van Marle, The
development of the Italian schools of painting (1923- ), while among works
of reference may be mentioned U. Thieme and F. Becker, Allgemeines
Lexikon der bildenden Kinstler (1907- ), A. von Wurzbach, Nieder-
ldndisches Kiinstler-Lexikon (3 vol., 1906-11), H. van Hall, Repertorium
voor de geschiedenis der nederlandsche schilderen graveerkunst (1936), F. G.
Waller, Biographisch woordenboek van noord nederlandsche graveurs (1938),
H. W. Singer, Allgemeiner Bildniskatalog (14 vol., 1930-6) and Neuer
Bildniskatalog (5 vol., 1937-8), 0. Schmitt, Reallexikon zur deutschen
Kunstgeschichte (1937- ) and F. Lugt, Les marques de collections de dessins
& d'estampes (1921) and Repertoire des catalogues de ventes publiques (1938).
Of the books relating to Leonardo, it is not possible to detail here more than
the principal facsimiles of his manuscripts-those in the Bibliotheque de
l'Institut published under the editorship of C. Ravaisson-Mollien from 1881
onwards, the Codice atlantico with transcription and notes by G. Piumati
(1894-1904), the Quaderni d' anatomia in a six-volume Christiania edition
(1911-16) and a collection of I manoscritti e i disegni which began to appear
in Rome a few years before the War, under the auspices of the Italian
Ministry of Education. Other works of interest to students of the history of
painting and drawing are a file of Max Dessoir's Zeitschrift fiir Asthetik
und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft (1906- ), R. van Marle, Iconographie de
l'art profane au moyen-dge et e la renaissance (2 vol., 1931-2), A. Venturi,
North Italian painting of the quattrocento.: Lombardy, etc. (1930), H. Tietze
and E. Tietze-Conrat, The drawings of the Venetian painters in the z5th and
i6th centuries (1944), M. J. Friedlander, Die altniederldndische Malerei
14 vol., 1934-7), M. J. Friedlinder and J. Rosenberg, Die Gemalde von
Lucas Cranach (1932), E. Magne, Nicolas Poussin, premier peintre du roi,
1594-1665 (1914), G. Broulhiet, Meindert Hobbema, 1638-1709 (1938),
the correspondence of Delacroix edited by A. Joubin (5 vol., 1936-8)
and R. Escholier, Delacroix: peintre, graveur, ecrivain (3 vol., 1926-
1929), E. Moreau-N6laton, Manet racontM par lui-mlme (2 vol., 1926),
A. Vollard, La vie & l'ceuvre de P.-A. Renoir (1919) and C. Zervos, Histoire

de l'art contemporain (1938). The edition of Blake's Illustrations of the
Book of Job reproduced in facsimile, with an introduction by Laurence
Binyon and Geoffrey Keynes, and issued by the Pierpont Morgan Library,
New York, in 1935, sets standards of reproduction and editing that have
probably not been surpassed in any work dealing with either an English or
a European painter. Architecture ranges from H. R. Hahnloser's critical
edition of the famous notebook of Villard de Honnecourt (1935) through
J. Strzygowski, Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa (2 vol., 1918) and
the designs for a Haus eines Kunstfreundes (Darmstadt, 1902) of an architect
who even now has had less attention paid to him at home than abroad-
Charles Rennie Mackintosh, some of whose work is to be seen in Glasgow in,
for example, the School of Art-to A. Sartoris, Gli element dell' architettura
funzionale (1935). Primitive art is represented by G. A. Reichard, Melan-
esian design (2 vol., 1933), sculpture by F. Henry, La sculpture irlandaise
pendant les douze premiers siecles de l'Pre chritienne (2 vol., 1933), ceramics
by G. B. Rossi, Musaici cristiani e saggi dei pavimenti delle chiese di
Roma anteriori al secolo xv (1899), Die deutsche Plastik des 1i.-i8.
Jahrhunderts (9 vol., 1924-8) and S. de Ricci, A catalogue of early Italian
Majolica in the collection of Mortimer L. Schiff (1927), and metal-work by
W. A. von Jenny, Kellische Metallarbeiten (1935). While a good deal of atten-
tion has been paid to works on theatrical design, the principal purchases relat-
ing to the theatre-the large collections of Theatergeschichtliche Forschungen
(1891- ) and of Schriften der Gesellschaft fir Theatergeschichte (1902- )
-deal with history rather than aesthetics.
The purchase of a large collection of first and other early editions of
Handel has been followed by an attempt to acquire the more important
modern foreign works relating to this composer, such as the publications
of the German Handel Society and one of five copies of a translation of
Victor Schoelcher's catalogue of the works of Handel by Miss S. A. A. P.
Mann, produced in 1941 under the editorship of Mr 0. E. Deutsch. This
scholar's edition of Mozart's Drei Lieder fir den Friihling (1937) may be
singled out as representative of the numerous musical texts acquired.
General works in the field of music include A. Lavignac's Encyclopddie
(II vol., 1920-31) and K. Meyer and P. Hirsch, Katalog der Musikbibliothek
Paul Hirsch (1928- ), and specialized studies, G. Bontoux, La chanson en
Angleterre au temps d',lisabeth (1936). The library is now rich too in
thematic catalogues, such as A. von Ehrmann's for Brahms (1933) and,
most famous of all, L. von K6chel's for Mozart (3rd edition, 1937).
When we come to history, the first place must be given to the great
collections of documents and sources. For France there is an almost complete
set of the Documents inidits sur l'histoire de France built up partly by
purchase and partly by a system of exchange of official publications, arranged

in this country by the Public Record Office, as well as the various series
issued by the Ecole des Chartes, not only the Documents historiques and
Mimoires et documents but (though strictly it does not belong here and is
bracketed with them only for convenience) the Bibliothdque with its wider
net. (Another Bibliothkque containing a good deal of material of similar
interest, though as well as history it also embraces linguistic, literary and
archaeological studies, is that of the Ecole des Hautes Etudes.) But to come
back to the collections of documents, France is further represented by
the Diplomata Karolinorum (1936- ), edited in facsimile by F. Lot and
Ph. Lauer. When the present writer thinks of the complacency with which
slovenly and inadequate facsimiles of historical manuscripts are sometimes
issued and the apparent eagerness of libraries to buy such wares at whatever
prices they are peddled, he cannot forbear to single out this excellent
series of albums as a model of its kind. Two of the Scandinavian countries
have been very fully covered by the Corpus codicum islandicorum medii
aevi (1930- ), Diplomatarium islandicum (1857- ), Regesta diplomatic
historiae danicae (4 vol., 1847-1907), Diplomatarium danicum (1938- ) and
F. Blatt and C. A. Christensen's Corpus diplomatum regni danici (1938- ).
There is naturally much material of interest to Scottish historians in all
these collections as well as in the Hanserecesse covering the period 1256-
1530 (24 vol., 1870-1913) and Hansisches Urkundenbuch (1876- ) and
R. A. Parmentier's Indices op de brugsche poorterboeken (2 vol., 1938).
Students of general European history are also catered for by such works
as L. Wahrmund, Quellen zur Geschichte des romisch-kanonischen Processes
im Mittelalter (1905- ), K. Lanz's edition of the correspondence of
Charles V (3 vol., 1844-6), Cardinal Hergenroether's edition of the Regesta
of Leo X (1884-91), the Bibliothek deutscher Geschichte of H. von Zwiedi-
neck-Siidenhorst (24 vol., 1889-1921), the Acta Borussica: Denkmdler der
preussischen Staatsverwaltung im i8. Jahrhundert published in Berlin by
the Royal Academy of Sciences (1892- ) and Repertorium der diplo-
matischen Vertreter aller Ldnder seit dem Westfdalischen Frieden (1648)
(1936- ). An unusual kind of enterprise, though one that might be followed
to advantage by other countries possessing similar resources, is Michael
O'Flanagan's edition of Letters containing information relative to antiquities
collected during the Ordnance Survey of Ireland in 1840 (35 vol., Bray,
So much for the raw material of history. After documents, the principal
national histories have been systematically collected. Examples are E.
Lavisse, Histoire de France, illustrie: depuis les originesjusqu'ta la Rdvolution
(17 vol., 1921-31), H. Brugmans, Geschiedenis van Nederland (9 vol.,
1935-8), R. van Roosbroeck, Geschiedenis van Vlaanderen (1936- ),
F. Baer, Die Juden im christlichen Spanien (1929- ), C. F. Allen, De tre

nordiske rigers historic . 1497-1536 (5 vol., 1864-72) and The official
history of Australia in the War of 1914-1918 (12 vol., 1939-42). Works of
more local scope if not always of smaller bulk include such histories as that
of Languedoc by C. Devic and J. Vaissete (16 vol., 1872-1905), that of
Bordeaux by C. Jullian (1895) and G. F. Farnham's privately-printed
Leicestershire medieval village notes (6 vol., 1929-33) as well as a whole
group of university histories and registers that have borne fruit in Scotland
in the work of Mrs Dunlop and others who have studied the wanderings
of Scots students abroad-for instance, the Auctarium chartularii Universi-
tatis Parisiensis edited by C. Samaran, E. A. van Mo6 and S. Vitte
(1935- ), De Utrechtsche Universiteit, 1636-1936 (2 vol., 1936), C. Bor-
geaud, Histoire de l'universitd de Geneve (4 vol., 1900-34), G. von P61nitz,
Die Matrikel der Ludwig-Maximilians- Universildt (1937- ) and G. Ritter,
Die Heidelberger Universitdt (1936- ).
Then there are the histories of persons, such as R. Delachenal, Histoire
de Charles V (5 vol., 1909-31), G. Du Fresne de Beaucourt, Histoire de
Charles VII (7 vol., 1881-91), H. Vignaud, Etudes critiques sur la vie de
Colomb avant ses ddcouvertes (1905) and Histoire critique de la grande
entreprise de Christophe Colomb (2 vol., 1911), E. Doumergue, Jean Calvin.
les hommes et les choses de son temps (7 vol., 1899-1927) and A. Bellesheim,
Wilhelm Cardinal Allen, 1532-1594 (1885).
Finally there are works auxiliary to the study of history, especially in
the field of heraldry, the most notable being H. Jougla de Morenas, Grand
armorial de France (1934- ), D. L. Galbreath, Armorial vaudois (2 vol.,
1934-6) and Inventaire des sceaux vaudois (1937), E. von Berchem, D. L.
Galbreath and 0. Hupp, Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Heraldik (1939) and
the privately-printed Scottish heraldic seals of J. H. Stevenson and M. Wood
(3 vol., 1940).
It is natural that a great deal of time and money should have been spent
in these twenty years on the building up of a large collection of biblio-
graphical works, if for no other use than as tools in the Departments of Printed
Books and Manuscripts. Among outstanding palaeographical studies may
be mentioned A. Bruckner, Scriptoria medii aevi helvetica (1935- ),
J. Mallon, R. Marichal and C. Perrat, L'dcriture latine de la capital
romaine a la minuscule (1939), J. A. Destrez, La pecia dans les manuscripts
universitaires du xiize et du xzv- siecle (1935) and S. H. Steinberg and
S. Morison, A fifteenth century Modus scribendi from the Abbey of Melk
(1940). Works relating to illuminated manuscripts include K. Weitzmann,
Die byzantinische Buchmalerei des 9. und 1o. Jahrhunderts (1935), V. Lero-
quais, Les pontificaux manuscripts des bibliothdques publiques de France
(4 vol., 1937) and Un livre d'heures de Jean sans Peur, Duc de Bourgogne,
1404-1419 (1939), H. C. Hoskier, The golden Latin Gospels . in the

Library of J. Pierpont Morgan (1910) and D. D. Egbert, The Tickhill
Psalter and related manuscripts (1940). It should be recorded at this point
that a large number of Roxburghe Club books have been purchased, includ-
ing many of those devoted to English mediaeval manuscripts, and that
the Library's set is now virtually complete. Another valuable collection that
has been purchased almost entire is that of the Codices e Vaticanis select,
and among single facsimiles of manuscripts are the Greek Genesis at Vienna,
edited by H. Gerstinger (2 vol., 1931), the Laurentian Sophocles introduced
by E. Maunde Thompson and R. C. Jebb (1885), the Codice Trivulziano of
the Divina Commedia (1921) and, to give good examples of photography
applied to much more recent manuscripts, the poems and letters of Burns
reproduced by the Burns Club of St Louis (1908) and the 'Geddes' Burns
reproduced by the Bibliophile Society of Boston (1908). A Festschrift that
is of specially though by no means exclusively palaeographical interest is
the Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle (1924), which must surely hold a world's
record for bulk (5 vol. and Album) among works in this class.
Two other examples of the Festschrift, those in honour of Dr Isak Collijn
and E. R. Weiss (1925), cover a wide range of bibliographical and typo-
graphical interests. The most important periodical purchases in these fields
are Imprimatur: ein Jahrbuch fiir Biicherfreunde (Hamburg, 1930- ), the
new series of The Colophon (1936- ) and, most original of all, Cesky
bibliofil (1930- ), in which text and illustrations are combined with in-
credible grace and liveliness.
Obviously it was going to be impossible to give within this space any
idea of the wealth of the large special collections presented and bequeathed
to the Library during its first twenty years. One class of book singled out
from these collections-say, the English books up to 1640 or even the French
books to 16oo00-would have called for fuller treatment than could be pro-
vided here. The modern purchases seemed to offer a more manageable field;
but the appearance has proved deceptive.



NOW AND AGAIN we find one of the early play-catalogues published by
Rogers and Ley (1656), Edward Archer (1656) and Francis Kirkman
(1661 and 1671) cited as authority for the ascription of a play to some author
or other, and perhaps we wonder what weight such an attribution carries.
Less, it is generally assumed, than an attribution by Langbaine., That may
be true; yet Langbaine built on the foundations laid by Kirkman, who in
turn relied on his predecessors, and some of Langbaine's ascriptions are
undoubtedly taken over from the earlier catalogues, so that ultimately we
come back to our previous question. A full discussion of the character
and construction of the several lists would be a lengthy and tedious affair,
but the considerations that affect the credibility of the attributions can be
stated more briefly, and a review of them may have some interest for
bibliographers. So far as the two earlier catalogues are concerned we have
no external guidance whatever in the matter of authority; we do not even
know by whom or in what circumstances they were compiled. Archer's
purports, it is true, to represent the stock of a second-hand bookseller, since
the plays are offered for sale: Rogers and Ley's does not even vouchsafe us
that much information. Kirkman's certainly represents, in the main, his own
stock; 2 and as he had been collecting for several years and was in touch with
other collectors and with former actors, he was at any rate in a position
to gather what information was current at the time. I shall not hesitate
to refer to the compiler of the lists of 1661 and 1671 as Kirkman; but it is
only to avoid circumlocution that I shall speak of the compilers of the two
lists of 1656 as 'Rogers' and 'Archer' respectively.

The earliest of the four catalogues was printed at the end of a play called
The Careless Shepherdess 'Written by T.G.' and published by Richard
Rogers and William Ley or Lee in 1656. It is a perfunctory compilation,
upon which it would seem that very little care was bestowed and in which
authors' names are entered only sporadically. There are frequent errors and
I The gradual elaboration of Langbaine's work and its biographical value deserve closer study than
they have hitherto received.
2 In 1671 Kirkman stated that his 1661 list contained 690 items, that in the ten years since its
appearance 100 plays had been printed, and that his new list, including some pieces previously over-
looked, ran to 8o6 items. (I have not checked these figures.) These he believed to be all that were in
print, in which, of course, he was mistaken. Further, he claimed to have seen all within ten, and to
have all within thirty in stock,

confusions, which sometimes result in the creation of imaginary authors.
Thus it would be a mistake to see in the entry 'Gentle craft, Holiday' an
attribution of the anonymous Shoemakers' Holiday, or the Gentle Craft
(actually Dekker's) to the obscure dramatist Barten Holiday, or in 'Cynthius
Revels, Fountaine' an ascription of Jonson's Cynthia's Revels, or the Foun-
tain of Self-Love to the equally obscure John Fountain. Other ghostly
attributions are 'Edward i. Long. Shanks', 'Committy man, Currie' (i.e.
The Committee-Man Curried) and 'Revenge of Bussy, Damboise'. Con-
trarywise one author appears pleasantly disguised as part of a title: 'Greens
tu quoque cookt' is Greene's Tu Quoque by John Cooke. These vagaries
are of course easily corrected and may be dismissed in considering the
compiler's intentions. It is true that titles and names are sometimes per-
verted almost beyond recognition by strange misprints. 'Cincbiline' and
'Impatient potency' are mildly startling instances of the former, and
'Fuimus tries the true Trojans fortune both by Land and Sea' is an ingenious
if unfortunate conflation of Fuimus Troes, or the True Trojans and
Fortune by Land and Sea. Among authors' names, 'Cyril Teudor' is
Tourneur, 'Brown' (author of 'City wit') is Richard Brome, 'Cosmo much'
is Manuche; 'Lowly' stands for Cowley not Lower. The names of Beaumont
and Fletcher, together or apart, are sometimes reduced to a single initial,
and appear to be assigned with complete indifference. Abbreviations such as
'Chap.', 'Heyw:', 'W. Daven.', and 'Shak:' cause no trouble; but 'Shakerly.
Me:' for Marmion and 'Rich.' for Nathaniel Richards are less obvious. One
gets the impression that the compiler made hasty notes as he went through
some collection of plays, confident that he would be able to interpret and
expand correctly when transcribing them at leisure, and that they were
handed to the printer as they stood to make of them what he might.
Excluding the five fictitious authors and adding the one disguised author
mentioned above, there are I think 167 attributions in the list.3 Of these all
but sixteen are taken from the printed editions that the compiler may be
supposed to have had before him, and so, whether right or wrong,4 are not
his responsibility. They are of no interest except as occasionally suggesting
I Italics are normally used in the list to distinguish authors' names from titles, and I have therefore
retained them in quoting entries. Authors' names are also italicized in the later lists, but as they are
further distinguished by being placed in a separate column, I have not thought it necessary to retain
the distinction of type.
2 There is a mysterious entry 'Pastor Stapilton', which suggests a translation of Guarini's Pastor
Fido by Sir Robert Stapleton, but no such work is known.
3 Although I have made the counts with care, I cannot guarantee the strict accuracy of this or other
similar figures; however, I do not think they will be found to be more than one or two out. I have
excluded all names of classical authors, such as Terence and Seneca, since these, when given, are
always treated as part of the title. Although there are, as we shall see, occasional slips, it was clearly
the intention of all the cataloguers to treat translators as authors.
4 For example, Shirley's Coronation is ascribed to Fletcher in accordance with the quarto of 1640:
see below, p. 316.

on what edition the compiler relied.' Of the sixteen, exactly half contradict
the evidence of the prints (which in the case of these plays there is no reason
to doubt): the remaining eight are attributions of anonymous plays, and of
these again half are certainly wrong. This leaves only four instances in
which the compiler may have preserved for us some traditional information.
Of all sixteen attributions something must be said.
Two appear to involve mechanical errors. Thus Shirley's name has got
attached to an anonymous tragedy The Sophy (later acknowledged as by
Sir John Denham) through being crowded out of the entry of his School of
Compliment in the line above. And I am inclined to believe that Chapman's
name has got attached to the anonymous Michaelmas Term (really by
Middleton) through being crowded out of the entry 'Masque of the gentle-
men of Grays In' in the line below. This, of course, is really Beaumont's,
but it appears to have been confused with Chapman's Middle Temple
masque that graced the same festivities. Other errors arose in various ways.
'Guise, Marstone' is, I fancy, Marlowe's Massacre at Paris and the author's
name a mere misprint or the wrong expansion of a contraction. The ascrip
tion of Sharpe's Noble Stranger to Shirley may be similarly explained. It
must have been through a slip that the initials 'B.F.' (indicating Beaumont
and Fletcher) were attached to Davenant's Unfortunate Lovers, unless we
suppose confusion with The Mad Lover. Day's Humour out of Breath is
given to Chapman, presumably through confusion with An Humorous
Day's Mirth, printed with Chapman's initials in 1599 but missing from the
catalogue; or it might be due to the telescoping of consecutive entries,
'Humor out of breath, [Day. I Humerous days mirth,] Chapman'. The Bond-
man appears twice, once correctly assigned to Massinger, and a second time
assigned to Fletcher, by confusion I suspect with Bonduca (though this also
appears). Rowley's All's Lost by Lust was printed with his name in 1633:
here it is ascribed to Massinger, perhaps through confusion between two
playwrights who were known to have collaborated. More mysterious are the
initials 'B.H.' appended to The Repentance of Mary Magdalene, for Lewis
Wager is named as author on the title-page of the only known edition,
1566-7. At a guess one might suppose that the compiler had before him a
copy that had lost its title-leaf, but on which some former owner had written
his initials. That some of the copies on which the compiler worked bore
inscriptions of one sort or another is indicated by the entry 'Look about
you or run red cap': the title in the only known edition of this anonymous
I For instance 'Cressus Tragidy, Sterlin' shows that for Croesus, as indeed for other plays by Sir
William Alexander, he used the Recreations with the Muses of 1637, since only in that collection is
the author called the Earl of Stirling. The same applies to Kirkman's lists. On the other hand 'Archer'
gives the author as William Alexander, showing that he used one of the editions of The Monarchic
Tragedies, 1607 and 1616; the prefix 'Sir' in the case of The Alexandrean Tragedy suggests that this
title at least was taken from the edition of 1616.

comedy (1600) is simply Look About You, but Redcap is a character in the
play, and the phrase, which was proverbial, occurs in it several times, so
that some reader may have thought it a suitable alternative. Lastly, so far
as errors are concerned, we find not only Marlowe's Edward II but also
the anonymous Edward III and Edward IV attributed to Shakespeare.
This, I presume, was by confusion or analogy with the four Henries, which
are also duly assigned to him; and I imagine that we should have found
Peele's Edward I included in the attribution, had not the printer provided
it with another author in 'Long. Shanks'. Clearly 'Rogers' cannot reasonably
be cited in support of Capell's belief that Edward III was by Shakespeare.
I have still to deal with the four attributions that, as possibly correct,
deserve more serious consideration. Two depend on the interpretation of
initials in the early prints and may be accepted as correct. Titles always
liable to confusion are A Jovial Crew, or the Merry Beggars, printed as by
Richard Brome in 1652, and The Jovial Crew, or the Devil turned Ranter,
printed as 'by S.S. Gent.' in 1651. The former is unassigned by 'Rogers',
the latter appears as 'Jovall Crew, Shepheard'. It was probably current
knowledge that the initials 'S.S.' stood for Samuel Sheppard, a royalist
parson and pamphleteer, whose name had already appeared on another
dramatic skit, The Committee-Man Curried, four years earlier, and who
claimed to have begun his career as amanuensis to Ben Jonson (see Herford
and Simpson, I 34 note). The other entry in question is 'Imperiale, Free-
man'. The tragedy of Imperiale was issued in what seem to have been private
and anonymous prints in 1639 and 1640: an authorized public edition in
1655 contained an epistle signed 'R.F.' There seems no reason to doubt
that the author was Sir Ralph Freeman, a master of requests and
auditor of imprests: the attribution, first made explicit by Kirkman, was
endorsed by Langbaine, and has been generally accepted. 'Rogers's' entry
suggests specific knowledge of a sort. The other two attributions are of
completely anonymous publications. We find an entry 'Queen of Aragon.
Habington': 'Archer' omitted the author's name, but Kirkman restored it
more precisely as 'Will. Habington'. This attribution is confirmed by Sir
Henry Herbert's licence, and an allusion by Samuel Butler shows that it
was common knowledge. Finally there is the entry 'Mercurius Brittanicus,
Brathwat'. The piece is a dramatic skit on the subject of ship-money that
appeared in both English and Latin in 1641 or thereabouts,, and its assign-
ment to Richard Brathwaite, the Westmorland squire who wrote Barnabee's
Journal, is plausible, and may be correct, though I have failed to find any
external confirmation. 'Archer' omitted the piece; Kirkman restored it, but
without the attribution, and was followed by Langbaine. It remained
SA couple of years before Marchmont Nedham and Thomas Audley used the same title for their
Parliamentary news-sheet.

anonymous till the appearance of the Biographia Dramatica of 1782, when
Isaac Reed once again attributed it to Brathwaite, this time on the authority
of Anthony Wood.1 But Wood not only knew Rogers and Ley's catalogue,
but himself possessed a copy (Bodleian Library, Wood e. 28), and in this
he put a mark against the present entry. It is, therefore, only too probable
that this was itself the source of Wood's attribution. The most authoritative
account of Brathwaite's life and writings is to be found in Joseph Hasle-
wood's introduction to his edition of Barnabee's Journal (1820), in which he
lists the play without comment; on the other hand it is not mentioned at all
in Edmund Gosse's article in the D.N.B.
Whether for these four ascriptions the compiler of the catalogue relied on
his own knowledge or merely followed notes that he found in the copies
before him, it is of course impossible to tell. That he preserved some genuine
information is evident; but it appears from the above showing that, con
formation or rebuttal apart, any attribution made on his own authority is at
least three times as likely to be wrong as right.

The second catalogue to appear was appended to an edition of The Old Law,
a comedy by Massinger, Middleton and Rowley, published by Edward
Archer with the same date 1656. The heading to the catalogue gave two
addresses where the plays might be bought, namely Archer's own shop, the
Adam and Eve in Little Britain, and the Ben Jonson's Head over against
the Exchange, which was the shop of Robert Pollard in Threadneedle
Street. Pollard was associated the following year, over the publication of
the pseudo-Marlowan Lust's Dominion, with Francis Kirkman, who was
already collecting plays, so that it was possibly Pollard rather than Archer
who was interested in this side of the business: he may even have had Kirk-
man's assistance. Whoever compiled it, the catalogue is an advance on its
predecessor, on which, nevertheless, it is obviously based.2 Its more elaborate
form, however, opens the door to more serious confusions, and though
attributions are the rule instead of the exception, authors' names are even
more often misprinted.
x 'Mercurius Britanicus: or, the English Intelligencer. Tra. Com.-Printed the second time, 1641.
qu[arto].' (Athenae Oxonienses, 1691-2, vol. II, col. 378; cf. col. 467, where the authorship is again
asserted). Wood had seen the third and enlarged edition of the English version. The entry is repeated
in the Athenae of 1721 (vol. I, col. 517), whence Reed took the ascription, and again, without comment,
in Philip Bliss's revision of 1813-20.
2 As shown by a number of common errors and misprints, including 'iEdipus' under '0', and
'Three English heroes' for The Travels of the Three English Brothers. Nevertheless the majority of
the entries were made independently from the books themselves. The Careless Shepherdess was entered
for publication on 22 October, 1655, and though dated 1656 may have appeared before the end of the
calendar year. The Old Law, which was not entered, may therefore have been printed almost any
time in 1656, though probably not very early. The inscription 'August 6, 1655' on a copy in the British
Museum must be a mistake.

As before, we have to clear away a good deal of muddle and error before
coming to serious criticism. The scribe and compositor between them have
made some titles and names almost unrecognizable. Phillis of Scyros
appears strangely disguised as 'Scirio and Phillis'; Richard Brome's City
Wit, which 'Rogers' assigned to 'Brown', is here assigned to 'Richs Benne';
The Conflict of Conscience is given to 'Sam Wood' by error for Nathaniel
Woods; Humour out of Breath is ascribed to a 'John Doy', and 'Isle of
gall H Pow. Day' is of course John Day's comedy The Isle of Gulls;
Thomas Kyd's Cornelia appears as 'Cornelius' by 'Thomas Loyd', and
The Spanish Tragedy is assigned to 'Tho. Kyte'; Robert Armin, author of
The Two Maids of Moreclacke, appears as 'Armion' (by confusion with
Marmion?), and Robert Yarington, author of Two Lamentable Tragedies,
is disguised as 'Roger Yernton'. Thomas Dekker (or Decker) appears
repeatedly as 'Darker' or 'Barker'. It is unlikely to have been through
delicacy that this author is credited (under his right name) with a play called
'Honest, both parts', but the misprint 'Masquard D ciel' is at any rate less
embarrassing than that of the distinguished scholar who referred to the
piece as Masquerade du Cul.
A word must be said about the form of the list. 'Rogers' was content,
where he recorded the author, merely to add his name at the end of the title.
This, as we have seen, had its own dangers. Archer's list has three separate
columns; in the first is the title, in the second a letter indicating the nature
of the play, in the third the author's name when known.' The trouble with
this is that the entries in the several columns are apt to get out of alinement.
When the shift is slight it is easily corrected and may be disregarded; but
when at one point it approximates to a whole line the result is definite
misattribution. Moreover, on at least two occasions the printer, misled no
doubt by bad alinement in the manuscript, appears to have sought to remedy
matters by repeating an author's name (once in A and again at the beginning
of R). These belong to a class of what may be called mechanical errors, to
which no doubt also belong two cases of inversion, in which a pair of con-
secutive titles have exchanged authors, though it is less easy to see exactly
how the error was caused. Another mechanical peculiarity is that where two
or more consecutive titles begin with the same word a dash is sometimes used
to avoid repetition, and not always used correctly.2
x In Kirkman's list the authors' names are in the first column, the titles in the second, and the dis-
tinguishing letters in the third.
2 Once this practice led to the creation of a ghost. We read:
Queen T John Fletcher.
-- of Corinth T
of her sex T
The only known play called The Queen is 'The Queen, or the Excellency of her Sex' (probably by Ford),
which is the third of these entries, and Fletcher was the author of The Queen of Corinth. Evidently

Of the 151 entries in Rogers and Ley's list that contain authors' names
drawn from early prints, 'Archer' omitted one entry altogether, namely
Shakespeare's King Lear, and also eliminated a few duplicates; furthermore,
in twelve cases he omitted the attribution, though correct, and in ten cases
he altered it. Of the alterations two are only apparent. Eastward Ho was
printed in 1605 under the names of Chapman, Jonson and Marston;
'Rogers' gave it to 'B.J.', 'Archer' to Chapman. In 1639 The Ball was
printed as by Chapman and Shirley; 'Rogers' gave it to the latter, 'Archer'
to the former. Two altered ascriptions are due to mechanical errors: that of
The Roman Actor to Shakespeare, and that of The Wedding to Field. Of
the six other changes one is right and five are wrong: I shall consider them
later. Of eight plays misassigned by 'Rogers' contrary to the evidence of the
prints, 'Archer' omitted the duplication of The Bondman (with its attri-
bution to Fletcher) and dropped the erroneous ascriptions of Edward I and
The Repentance of Mary Magdalene, without, however, substituting others;
further, he rightly assigned All's Lost by Lust to Rowley, Humour out
of Breath to Day (disguised as 'Doy'), and The Unfortunate Lovers to
Davenant. The other two, The Guise and The Noble Stranger, must be
reserved for further consideration. Of 'Rogers's' four misassignments of
anonymous plays, 'Archer' removed the Shakespearian attributions from
Edward III and Edward IV, and he substituted plausible ascriptions for
Michaelmas Term and The Sophy to which I shall return. Of 'Rogers's'
four correct, or possibly correct, attributions of anonymous or quasi-
anonymous plays, 'Archer' did not keep a single one: he omitted Mercurius
Britannicus altogether (perhaps because he only knew the Latin version)
and likewise Sheppard's Jovial Crew (which he may have mistaken for a
duplication of Brome's play of the same title); from Imperiale and The
Queen of Aragon he removed the attributions to Freeman and Habington
'Archer' added just on 2oo new attributions drawn from early editions.
Of course not all of these are themselves correct. For example, The Trouble-
some Reign of King John, entered as 'John K. of England, both parts', is
ascribed to Shakespeare in accordance with the edition of 1622 (it had been
printed anonymously in 1591, and in 1611 as 'by W. Sh.')-although the
King John of the Shakespeare folios is left unassigned. The count includes
one play that is no longer extant, entered as 'Destruction of Jerusalem M
Thomas Legge'. We know from Meres and Fuller that Thomas Legge,
Master of Caius and Regius Professor of Civil Law at Cambridge, and
author of a Latin tragedy on Richard III extant in several manuscripts,
wrote a 'famous' play on this subject, which may have been in English and
'Queen' should stand in place of the first dash, one 'T' should be omitted, and the alinement corrected.
I have assumed this correction in the further discussion.

may have been printed. If so it was probably from an actual edition that
'Archer' derived his information; at least I have felt justified in making the
assumption. But it can hardly have been a masque.
There are in Archer's list fourteen previously unallotted plays mis-
assigned to authors other than those whose names appear on the early prints.
Most of these attributions we can dismiss as due to what I have called
mechanical errors: The Ladies' Privilege ascribed to Shirley and The Lady
of Pleasure to Glapthorne, The Wedding (correctly assigned by 'Rogers')
ascribed to Field and Woman is a Weathercock to Shirley, Ram Alley
ascribed to Massinger and The Roman Actor (correctly assigned by 'Rogers')
to Shakespeare, A Very Woman to Newcastle and a duplicate entry of The
Virtuous Octavia to Massinger, and lastly A Trick to Catch the Old One
ascribed to Shakespeare (probably through the printer's unwarrantedly
repeating the name). One more error can, I believe, be traced to a similar
cause; for the attribution of The Faithful Shepherdess to a mythical 'John
Dymmocke' is most likely due to the telescoping of two successive entries,
'Faithfull Shepheardesse C John [Fletcher I Faithfull Shepheard C]
Dymmocke': the surname ('Dymock') but not the christian name of the
translator of Guarini's play can be inferred from the early editions. There
remain six misattributions of a more serious character for further con-
Next we come to sixteen previously unallotted plays that were printed
under initials but here have names attached to them. In ten cases the
initials may be accepted as presumably correct, and to expand them needed
no more than a general familiarity with dramatic writers. They are Jasper
Mayne's Amorous War and City Match, Shirley's Cupid and Death,
Heywood's Fair Maid of the West, Massinger's Fatal Dowry, Chapman's
Humorous Day's Mirth, Thomas May's Julia Agrippina, Middleton's
Mad World my Masters, William Rowley's Match at Midnight and Samuel
Rowley's Noble Soldier. Possibly the identification of May, Mayne and
Samuel Rowley implies a more specialized knowledge than the rest; and it
is not really certain that the initials 'S.R.' on the title-page of The Noble
Soldier are correct, for the play was twice registered as Dekker's. In three
instances, though the initials have probably been interpreted in accordance
with the publisher's intention, the attribution is certainly unjustified. Thus
Thomas Lord Cromwell and The Puritan are ascribed to Shakespeare: the
third is the entry 'Solynus T Thomas Goffe' (in which the misprinted title
has a curiously learned look). 'The First part of the Tragicall raigne of
Selimus' was printed anonymously in 1594, and there is some reason for
assigning it to Robert Greene. But in 1638 a remnant of the stock came into
the hands of two booksellers, John Crooke and Richard Sergier, who
substituted a new title-leaf bearing the words 'Written T.G.' [sic], and there

is little doubt that these were intended to suggest the authorship of Thomas
Goffe, a student of Christ Church, whose Turkish tragedies seem to have
met with some success at Oxford. There remain three cases that, whether
right or wrong, deserve fuller discussion.
Lastly, the catalogue furnishes us with eighteen fresh attributions of
anonymously printed plays. Two of these, the ascription of Arden of
Feversham to Richard Bernard and that of The Arraignment of Paris (by
George Peele) to Shakespeare, can at once be dismissed as mechanical errors
of no significance. Of the remaining sixteen, seven are clearly wrong, six are
presumably right, and three are doubtful: all need discussion.
We have now cleared the rubbish out of the way and have reserved 35
significant attributions on the basis of which to form an opinion respecting
the nature and extent of the knowledge that the compiler of Archer's
catalogue possessed.
.Over half these attributions-nineteen to be precise-must be rejected
as erroneous. Some look like inadvertent blunders; some may even be
mechanical errors, though it is not apparent how they arose. Thus I can offer
no suggestion as to how The Iron Age, claimed on the title-page as Heywood's,
came to be ascribed to Dekker, or The Chances, from the Beaumont and
Fletcher folio, to Shakespeare. Another unexplained Shakespearian attri-
bution is that of 'Hieronimo, both parts', i.e. The First Part of Jeronimo
and The Spanish Tragedy, which is the less excusable since the compiler
knew that the latter was by Kyd. The attribution to Shakespeare of the
anonymous Mucedorus may be a measure of its popularity, but nobody since
Tieck has believed that it was justified. A fourth piece arbitrarily assigned
to Shakespeare is Hoffman, a crude tragedy printed anonymously in 1631,
but in respect of which Henry Chettle received a payment as early as 1602.
Since its second title is A Revenge for a Father, it was most likely intended
by its owners, the Admiral's men, as a counterblast to Hamlet, and 'Archer'
may have supposed it to be a companion piece instead of a rival. In 1638
appeared an anonymous play called The Lost Lady, which Anthony Wood
tells us was written by Sir William Berkeley, later Governor of Virginia;
how it came to be attributed to Beaumont and Fletcher I cannot guess.
Nor can I imagine why Heywood should be made responsible for The
Duchess of Suffolk, a play that Herbert licensed as by Thomas Drue or
Drew. The Seven Champions of Christendom was written by John Kirke,
who signed the epistle, but only the initials 'J.K.' appeared on the title-page:
perhaps a hasty note of these, misread as 'T.K.', led to an ascription to
'Thomas Kelligren', by which Killegrew is doubtless meant. One of the
most surprising attributions is that of a duplicate entry of 'Loves labor lost'
to William Sampson. Of this, however, there may be an interesting if highly
speculative explanation, I would do no more than hint at the possibility that

the lost 'bad quarto' of Shakespeare's play, which some critics believe to
have been printed about 1594-6, bore only the initials 'W.S.'; that the com-
piler, coming across this quarto, failed to identify it with the folio play; and
that, casting about for a suitable attribution, he lit on the obscure author of
The Vow Breaker (1636) and collaborator (with Markham) in Herod and
Antipater (1622).
In other cases the indications of confusion are more obvious. Two false
ascriptions seem due to confusion between authors of the same rather
uncommon christian name. Thus Lewis Sharpe's Noble Stranger is given
to Lewis Machin (an obscure writer who signed the preface and apparently
contributed to Gervase Markham's Dumb Knight); and Lodowick Carlell's
Passionate Lovers is given to 'Lodowick Loyd', an ascription that suggests a
rather unexpected acquaintance with the poet Ludovic Lloyd, Elizabeth's
sergeant-at-arms (or perhaps only with his son of the same name, who at
the time the catalogue was compiled had lately set up as a London book-
seller and had published Vaughan's Silex Scintilans). The anonymous play
Every Woman in her Humour (which has sometimes been ascribed to
Machin by reason of a likeness with parts of The Dumb Knight) is given to
Jonson, either on grounds of analogy or through mere confusion. In return
Jonson's New Inn is ascribed to Beaumont and Fletcher, possibly through
confusion with The Maid of the Inn. Some attributions are the result of
more complicated errors. The Extravagant Shepherd was printed in 1654
as translated from Thomas Corneille 'by T.R.': its ascription to Thomas
Goffe can only be due to confusion with The Careless Shepherdess, a play
printed in 1656 with the initials 'T.G.', which were probably intended to
imply (though erroneously) that it was the work of the Christ Church
dramatist (see below, p. 325). The explanation of the ascription of Shirley's
Love's Cruelty to Beaumont and Fletcher seems to be that the compiler first
converted Love's Cure, or the Martial Maid, a play of the Beaumont and
Fletcher folio, into 'Loves Cruelty or the Martials madee'' then confused
this with the real Love's Cruelty, and kept both entries. The surprising
attribution of Anthony Brewer's Lovesick King to a 'Thomas Bernard'
must have begun with a confusion between Anthony and his namesake
Thomas (who appears to have written the chapbook-not the play-of The
Merry Devil of Edmonton, and whom 'Archer' identified with the 'T.B.' of
The Country Girl) and concluded with a confusion between this Brewer and
Richard Bernard, the translator of Terence! The Senecan Octavia was
translated by Thomas Nuce, fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge, and
his name actually appears in the table of contents to Seneca's Ten Tragedies
in 1581; but only the initials 'T.N.' are appended to the text of the play,

I In Rogers and Ley's list this appeared as 'Loves cure of martial madnesse!

and this led to confusion, not as one might have expected with Thomas
Newton, translator of the Thebais and editor of the collection, but with
Thomas Newman, who published translations of the Andria and Eunuchus
of Terence in 1627!
Some of these blunders hint at a knowledge, however muddled, of
dramatic writing, and prepare us for two other attributions that, though
mistaken, may contain fragments of genuine information. We find The Maid
in the Mill, a play of the Beaumont and Fletcher collection, ascribed to
'Will. Rouly'. Rowley is of course known, and like Massinger may have
been known at the time, to have had a hand in some plays of the canon, and
according to Herbert's licence this particular play was the joint work of
Rowley and Fletcher. The ascription therefore may embody a current tradi-
tion. Again, the attribution to Shakespeare of The Merry Devil of Edmonton,
a play perhaps originally written by Dekker (see the recent edition by W. A.
Abrams), may safely be dismissed, at least so far as the mutilated text pre-
served in the quarto of 16o8 is concerned. Yet Humphrey Moseley registered
it as Shakespeare's on 9 September, 1653. I do not suppose that Moseley in-
vented the ascription. He certainly possessed a manuscript of the play, and it is
probable that this already bore Shakespeare's name. Moreover, it almost
certainly came into his hands from the survivors of the King's men (Shake-
speare's company). It doubtless contained the authentic text of the play,
and we cannot reject the possibility that at some time Shakespeare had
some hand in its production. It seems probable, therefore, that the compiler
of the catalogue had either seen Moseley's manuscript, or at least knew some
tradition connecting the play with Shakespeare.
The original attributions of anonymous or quasi-anonymous plays in
Archer's list that are certainly or presumably right are only about half as
many as those that are wrong. That Bussy D'Ambois is correctly assigned
to Chapman means little, for though his name first appeared in an issue of
1657 (the year after Archer's list), its sequel, The Revenge of Bussy, was
acknowledged as early as 1613. The Spanish Tragedy is attributed to 'Tho.
Kyte', by which Kyd is of course intended: though the'numerous editions
were anonymous, the authorship of so famous a play must always have
been known, and had been put on record by Heywood in 1612. Three
anonymous plays are ascribed to Middleton, A Game at Chess, Michaelmas
Term and The Family of Love. For the authorship of the first there is of
course ample evidence, and it must have been an open secret from the first;
'Archer' may even have seen a manuscript bearing his name, like several
that still survive. Of the attribution of the other two there is, so far as I am
aware, no external confirmation; but both were accepted as Middleton's by
Kirkman and Langbaine, and since editors have not questioned the ascrip-
tion, it may be assumed to be correct. The compiler, we may suppose, relied

on current tradition.' The Country Captain and The Variety were printed
in 1649 as the work of 'a Person of Honor', but Newcastle's authorship must
have been well known: they were registered as his, and Brome wrote a
poem 'To my Lord of Newcastle, on his Play called The Variety', which
was printed in his Five New Plays in 1659. 'Archer' ascribed The Country
Captain to Newcastle, and he intended to do the same with The Variety,
but a mechanical error attached the name to Massinger's Very Woman
instead. The Sophy was published anonymously in 1642 and first acknow-
ledged as Sir John Denham's by inclusion in his Poems and Translations
in 1668; its ascription to 'Thomas Denham' is a curious blend of knowledge
and ignorance or carelessness. Common report may also have credited
Carlell with the authorship of the anonymous Arviragus and Philicia of
1639, though so far as I know the only confirmation is to be found in a letter
from Charles, Prince Palatine, to his mother the Queen of Bohemia (G. E.
Bentley, Jacobean and Caroline Stage, 1941, 1 48). If thus far we have found
evidence of no more than a general acquaintance with such dramatic tradi-
tion as may be supposed to have survived in the later years of the Common-
wealth, we must at least allow the compiler the credit of having put it on
record. In one instance, however, we find what looks like more specific
knowledge. This is the attribution of the tragedy of Mariam, printed in 1613
as 'by that learned, vertuous, and truly noble Ladie, E.C.', to 'Lady Eliz.
Carew', for it was not till 1914 that the piece was proved to have been
written by Elizabeth, wife of Sir Henry Carey or Cary, later Viscount
Falkland. Here the compiler seems to have relied on private information,
for even if we supposed him to have seen one of those rare copies that contain
a dedicatory sonnet to 'my worthy Sister[-in-law], Mistris Elizabeth Carye'
and to have mistaken it (as others have done) for a commendatory poem
addressed to the author, that would not explain the 'Lady' and the spelling
'Carew'. Most likely he had before him a copy in which some former owner
had expanded the initials, not quite correctly.
Together with these correct or at least plausible attributions we may class
the correction of a title-page ascription. When the compiler assigned The
Coronation to Shirley instead of Fletcher, in defiance alike of the 1640
quarto and of Rogers and Ley's list, he must be taken to have known that
the piece had been claimed by its rightful author (as attested by Herbert) in
a list of his plays appended to The Cardinal in 1652.
The upshot is that while original attributions in Archer's list sometimes
rest on tradition surviving among play-lovers at the time, and may even
embody fragments of more special knowledge, they are, on a bare numerical
showing, in two cases out of three either careless blunders or irresponsible
x This seems to have been unusually persistent in the case of Middleton's plays, for Kirkman was
able to add a further pair of anonymous pieces that have been accepted into the canon.

guesses. And even making the fullest allowance for mere slips and possible
mechanical errors on the one hand, and for the misapplication of some items of
genuine information on the other, we can allow 'Archer' a fifty per cent credi-
bility at most. This we must bear in mind in discussing the attributions, six in
number, that rest primarily on his authority and remain open to question.
I do not know whether it is really fair to include among these 'doubtfuls'
the peculiar case of the entry 'Guise C Iohn Webster' (the 'C' at least we
may dismiss as an error). It will be remembered that the earlier catalogue
contained the entry 'Guise, Marstone', which we assumed to be an error for
Marlowe's Massacre at Paris. This was presumably the source of 'Archer's'
entry. Now, in a sense 'Archer's' ascription is correct and argues some
genuine information, for in dedicating The Devil's Law Case to Sir Thomas
Finch in 1623, Webster mentioned that he had written a play of this title.
On the other hand, the play is not now known, and there is no reason to
suppose that it was ever printed.' Two of the attributions in question rest
on the expansion of initials. In 1639 was published a play called The Bloody
Banquet 'By T.D.': 'Archer' assigned it to 'Thomas Barker', meaning
Dekker. I do not know whether the ascription can be disproved, but there
seems little if anything to be said in its favour. Kirkman reverted to the
initials, and since the play had belonged to Beeston's boys, and Kirkman
was a friend of William Beeston, he may have had authority for doing so.
A possible candidate is Thomas Drew or Drue. This hardly predisposes us
in favour of 'Archer's' attribution of The Country Girl, a pleasant comedy
published in 1647 as 'by T.B.', to Thomas Brewer, who is not known as a
dramatist (see above, p. 314): to Bullen the play suggested 'the diction and
versification of Massinger'. The other three cases have been taken, and
perhaps deserve to be taken, more seriously. The earliest is that of The
Maid's Metamorphosis, published anonymously in 16oo and here attributed
to Lyly, an ascription in which most bibliographers have acquiesced.
Admittedly it shows some resemblance to, or at least imitation of, Lyly's
work, and like his plays was performed by the children of Paul's. But the
difference is greater than the likeness, and the ascription may have been
suggested by similarity of title with Love's Metamorphosis, a play printed
the following year as Lyly's, and here duly included as his. A much more
important attribution is that of the anonymous Revenger's Tragedy to
Tourneur, acknowledged author of The Atheist's Tragedy. This has been
the subject of much debate, and criticism today seems inclined to believe
that, despite their manifest dissimilarity, the two pieces are in fact the work
I A manuscript of a play called The Duke of Guise was registered by Moseley on 9 September,
1653, but this he attributed to Henry Shirley, an amateur playwright (no kin of James Shirley) who
wrote The Martyred Soldier, but whose chief passport to fame was his murder by Sir Edward
Bishop, M.P.

of one hand. Yet we may be forgiven for doubting whether identity of
authorship would have ever been suspected had it not been for 'Archer's'
attribution, and this may again rest on no more than similarity of title. The
last case is again of less importance. In 1652 there appeared two plays
'Written by Major Cosmo Manuche', The Just General and The Loyal
Lovers, and these are duly recorded in the catalogue. But this also ascribes
to the same obscure author another piece printed anonymously the same
year under the title of The Bastard. In this 'Archer' was followed by
neither Kirkman nor Langbaine, and there appears indeed to be no external
confirmation of the ascription, for Coxeter, whom later bibliographers have
followed, was probably drawing on Archer's list, and without confirmation
the attribution can at best be regarded as doubtful.
When we have corrected as best we may what I have called the mechanical
errors of inversion and shifting, we find that the resulting attributions are
derived from the early prints themselves in every case but one. If I am right
in an attempt to disentangle an undoubted muddle over a set of entries under
the letter A, it was 'Archer's' intention to attribute Arden of Feversham to
Shakespeare., In that case we have a curious confirmation and anticipation
of an attribution otherwise first made in 177o, an attribution that has been
defended and assailed with equal vigour; but it is unlikely that 'Archer's'
authority will avail to resuscitate an opinion that has been definitely rejected
by modern criticism.

FRANCIS KIRKMAN, 1661 & 1671
The third catalogue is the first to whose compiler we can put a name. The
earlier of the two editions in which it appeared was added by Francis Kirk-
man to one of the issues of a reprint of Tom Tyler and his Wife in 1661,
but it was also advertised, and doubtless published, separately. An enlarged
and somewhat corrected edition, appended ten years later to John Dancer's
translation of the Nicomede of Pierre Corneille, contained an interesting
'Advertisement to the Reader' signed by Kirkman, in which he claimed to
have then been collecting plays for twenty years and to have drawn on the
experience of others whose activities covered half a century. This means
that some of the information at his disposal went back to the reign of James I.
Who his informants were he has not told us, but among them no doubt was
William Beeston (son of the famous actor-manager, and himself 'bred up
in the art') whom in a dedication 2 he calls 'the happiest interpreter and judg
of our English Stage-Plays this Nation ever produced'. Another may well
have been William Cartwright the younger, who continued acting surrep-
titiously during the Commonwealth, set up as a bookseller, gave a collection
For a discussion of this and the similar muddle under R, see R.E.S., 1945, xxI 134-6.
2 Of The Loves and Adventures of Clerio and Lozia, 1652.

of plays to Dulwich College and may possibly have gathered together the
manuscript pieces now forming MS. Egerton 1994 in the British Museum.
Cartwright was born in 16o6-7, Beeston was a litigant as early as 1624, and
both were sons of men whose stage careers probably began in the sixteenth
century. In Kirkman's catalogue if anywhere we ought to find such informa-
tion respecting dramatic authorship as could be collected in London at the
time of the Restoration.'
Kirkman's catalogue is manifestly based on Archer's, though it marks a
perceptible advance. But while he overhauled and rearranged his material,
the complaisancy with which he spoke of the 'great care' he had bestowed
on its preparation was only partly justified. While he corrected many of his
predecessor's errors, and in particular usually got the form of proper names
right,2 he perpetuated others and perpetrated some of his own.3 It seems
clear that he knew Rogers and Ley's catalogue as well as Archer's. We
again have the unwarranted expansion 'Look about you, or run Red caps'
(where 'Archer' only gives 'Look about you'). This might of course mean
that he had the same copy before him, but connection is proved by the
entry 'Robin Hoods Pastoral May-games', which refers to no actual play,
but is a conflation of two of 'Rogers's' entries, 'Robin hoods Pastorall' and
'Robin hoods Comedy used in may games' ('Archer's' entries are different).
And this knowledge of Rogers and Ley's list suggests that the absence of
Brathwaite's name from the entry of Mercurius Britannicus (which 'Archer'
omitted altogether) may be deliberate (but see below, p. 322).
Some care is implied by the treatment of a play called 'Don Quixot,
or the Knight of the ill-favoured countenance'. This was advertised by
I The story of Kirkman's career as author and bookseller has been told several times, most recently
and fully in an article by R. C. Bald in Modern Philology, 1943, XLI 17-32.
2 Doubtless the majority of Kirkman's entries were taken from the books themselves, but even so
the influence of his predecessors shows itself. Take for example the 'Two Lamentable Tragedies ...
By Rob. Yarington. . 1601' (head and running titles 'Two Tragedies in one') and compare the three
Rogers and Ley: 'Two Tragidies in one.'
Archer: 'Two Tragedies in one T Roger Yernton.'
Kirkman (1661): 'Robert Yarington Two tragedies in one. T.'
Obviously Kirkman had consulted the original; yet it can hardly be coincidence that all three catalogues
rely on the head (or running) title in preference to the title-page. Kirkman clearly sometimes preferred
traditional forms of proper names to those given in the books themselves. Thomas Randolph, who is
'Randolph' or 'Randalph' in Archer's list, becomes with Kirkman 'Randall' in 1661 and 'Randoll' in
1671. John Tatham appears only once in this spelling, but three times as 'Tateham', which may indicate
the current pronunciation.
3 A footnote seems the proper place to mention the absurd blunder of Edward Phillips, who sup-
posed that a blank in the column devoted to authors' names was equivalent to 'ditto', a misconception
that filled the pages of his Theatrum Poetarum (1675), and later those of Winstanley's Lives of the
English Poets (1687), with many strange and unconvincing attributions. The error was exposed and
explained by Langbaine in the preface to Momus Triumfhans (1688: cf. The Library, 1944, xxv 67),
but it infected subsequent works on dramatic bibliography, and has left its mark both in the General
Catalogue of the British Museum and the S.T.C.

Nathaniel Brooke from 1658 to 1662 as in the press, and it was evidently
on the strength of the advertisement that Kirkman included it in 1661;
but it failed to appear, and he omitted the entry from his later catalogue.
On the other hand it was careless to leave unassigned several plays that
had been published with their authors' names or initials. Examples are:
Edward Sharpham's piece The Fleer, which had been duly assigned to him
in both earlier lists, and the same writer's Cupid's Whirligig, which was
printed with an epistle subscribed with his initials; Belchier's See Me and
See Me Not, Davenant's Salmacida Spolia, and Greene's James IV; and
Samuel Harding's 'Fatal Union' (i.e. Sicily and Naples), which bore its
author's initials. In a laudable desire to avoid duplications (with which the
earlier lists abound) Kirkman unhappily omitted The Spanish Tragedy
(retaining only 'Hieronimo 2. partss], though without the absurd attribution
to Shakespeare) and with it went the ascription to Kyd (but he corrected
'Archer's' entry of 'Cornelius' by 'Thomas Loyd' to 'Cornelia' by 'Tho.
Kyd'). In some cases the absence of attribution is clearly due to the entry
being copied from Archer's list without sight of the original. For instance
all plays by John Bale bear his name on their title-pages, but the only two
here recorded, 'Lawes of Nature' (i.e. The Three Laws of Nature, Moses,
and Christ) and 'Promises of God manifested' (i.e. The Chief Promises of
God), remain anonymous as in the earlier lists. Some interest attaches to
Kirkman's attributions to John Heywood, whom he is the first cataloguer to
mention, since they apparently form the basis of the now traditional canon.
Both the earlier lists include The Four P's and Archer's has The Play of the
Weather, but they are treated as anonymous. Kirkman omitted The Four P's
in 1661, but restored it in 1671 with an ascription to Heywood. Heywood
also appears in both editions as the author of The Play of Love and The
Play of the Weather, which (like The Four P's) bear his name in the original,
and also of Gentleness and Nobility, Johan Johan, and The Pardoner and the
Friar, which are anonymous. (It was only the three acknowledged pieces
that John Bale recognized as Heywood's.) Some critics have argued that,
while he was the author of the three more or less serious debats (Gentleness,
Weather and Love) the three farces (Johan, Four P's and Pardoner) were
the work of some livelier member of the Rastall circle. Of course, this
division runs counter to the attributions in the early prints. The contradic-
tion may be open to explanation; but on the evidence as it stands, Kirkman's
more generous attributions cannot be said to be incompatible with the
internal data. It is most unlikely, however, that any tradition respecting
Heywood's authorship should have survived more than a century later, and
the most probable explanation is that Kirkman had seen, if he did not
actually possess, a volume in which the six pieces were bound together,
perhaps the very volume still preserved in Pepys's library.

We can best judge of Kirkman's authority by observing his treatment of
'Archer's' work. Some three dozen entries he omitted altogether.' These
include the ghost 'Queen', and the somewhat cryptic 'Characters M', in
which he excusably failed to recognize Jonson's 'Characters of two royall
Masques'; simple duplications of Daniel's Cleopatra, The Fortunate Isles
and Love's Labour's Lost (ascribed to Sampson); ten alternative titles
(including The Spanish Tragedy); the Latin play Paria; an assortment of
eight entries that appear to be errors of one kind or another, viz. 'Baggs
Seneca', 'Battel of Affliction' (probably a misprint for 'Battel of Affection',
i.e. Pathomachia, 1630, also entered under its running-title 'Loves load-
stone'), 'English Arcadia' (not dramatic), 'Impatient Grissell' (perhaps a
conflation of Impatient Poverty and Patient Grissil), 'Mother Rumming',
the mysterious 'Ortenus C' and 'Ortenas T', and 'Virgils Eclogs T'; 2 and
possibly three lost plays, 'Bartholmew Fairing', 'Nineveehs repentance'
(repeated from Rogers and Ley's list) and 'Owle C'. But they also include
eight pieces still extant, viz. Thomas Newman's translations of the Andria
and Eunuchus of Terence, Henry Birkhead's Cola's Fury, the 'Contention'
plays of Lancaster and York, Kynaston's Corona Minervae, The Rare
Triumphs of Love and Fortune (Kirkman may have mistaken the entry
'Love and fortune' for a duplication of Davenant's Love and Honour),
Jonson's Lovers made Men (entered simply as 'Lovers, a mask') and The
Scottish Politic Presbyter.
Seven other pieces that figure in Archer's list Kirkman omitted in 1661
only to reinstate them ten years later.3 These I shall discuss when I come
to consider the second edition of his catalogue. Meanwhile I confine my
remarks to the 1661 version.
There were, it will be remembered, 35 attributions in Archer's list that
we decided to regard as significant: let us see what Kirkman did with them.
Nineteen turned out to be errors. He omitted altogether the duplicate entry
of Love's Labour's Lost with its strange ascription to William Sampson, and
the entry of Hoffman with its false ascription to Shakespeare. He omitted
the erroneous attributions of 'Hieronimo', The Lost Lady, Every Woman in
her Humour and The Noble Stranger, without venturing on others (though
the last mentioned had been published under its author's name). But he
retained the false ascriptions of Mucedorus and The Merry Devil of Edmonton
I He also followed 'Archer' in omitting six entries (apart from duplications) in Rogers and Ley's
list. One of these, 'London or the harbor of health', is Thomas Heywood's mayoral pageant Londini
Sinus Salutis, 1635; another is 'Mariage of wit and wisdome, now only preserved in a manuscript
copy; 'Chinon of England' was more probably a romance; of 'Play of the Netherlands', 'Pastor Stapilton'
and 'Bays' nothing is known.
2 On the other hand Kirkman kept 'Susanna's tears', an almost certainly fictitious title, and
'Manhood & Wisdome', of which we know nothing.
3 The same applies to one play of Rogers and Ley's list already omitted in Archer's, The Jovial
Crew, by S.S.

to Shakespeare, and of The Duchess of Suffolk to Heywood. The other ten
he restored to their rightful authors according to the evidence of the early
Ten of Archer's attributions proved correct. All these Kirkman retained
except that of The Spanish Tragedy (a title he omitted altogether); but he
failed to correct 'Archer's' slip of 'Thomas' Denham as the author of
The Sophy.
Six we agreed to regard as doubtful. Kirkman kept the attribution of
The Maid's Metamorphosis to Lyly and that of The Revenger's Tragedy to
Tourneur (adding the christian name 'Cyrill'), but he rejected that of The
Bastard to Manuche. Since, however, he elsewhere repeated obviously
erroneous ascriptions (like that of The Arraignment of Paris to Shakespeare)
and omitted certainly correct ones (like that of The Fleer to Edward Sharp-
ham) we cannot be certain that retention implies considered approval or
omission definite disbelief. Kirkman kept the entry 'Guise' (omitting
'Archer's' 'C' in 1661 and substituting 'T' in 1671) but dropped all attribu-
tion, whether to 'Marstone' or Webster. He judiciously restored the initials
'T.D.' to the entry of The Bloody Banquet in place of Dekker's name (cf.
p. 317 above). Lastly he came a bad cropper over The Country Girl. This
comedy was printed in 1647 as 'By T.B.', initials that 'Archer' interpreted
as 'Thomas Brewer'. Kirkman assigned it to Anthony Brewer. This seems
to have been an attempt to reconcile 'Archer's' probably irresponsible
expansion of the initials with a quite unfounded belief that it must have been
the same Brewer who wrote The Lovesick King. Internal evidence makes
the identification incredible; but in spite of a warning from Langbaine,
it has often been accepted on the perverse assumption that the initials
'T.B.' stood for Tony Brewer. In all this Kirkman hardly shows to
Next let us see what Kirkman did about the other attributions, right or
wrong, in Archer's list. Of these he kept 324: among them that of Selimus
to Goffe, which has its explanation if not excuse, and that of The Arraign-
ment of Paris to Shakespeare, which originated in a mechanical error.
Eight ascriptions he omitted, though all but one of them were correct. The
removal of Bernard's name from Arden of Feversham was an obvious
correction of a mechanical error; Beza's was doubtless removed from
Abraham's Sacrifice because he was responsible for the Latin and not the
English, but Kirkman failed to substitute even the initials of Arthur Golding
the translator, which are on the print of 1577. The rest are presumably mere
errors: Legge's name disappears from the non-extant Destruction of Jeru-
salem, Mason's from the undramatic Combat of Caps (an abstract of a school
play), Bernard's from the Adelphi and Phormio of Terence, Sharpham's
from The Fleer and Henry Cheeke's from Freewill.

There are fifteen cases in which 'Archer's' attribution is altered. Ten of
these are corrections of mechanical errors or obvious slips. Thus The Faith-
ful Shepherdess, The Ladies' Privilege, The Lady of Pleasure, Ram Alley,
The Roman Actor, A Trick to Catch the Old One, A Very Woman, The
Virtuous Octavia, The Wedding and A Woman is a Weathercock return to
their rightful authors as recorded in the early prints.
Of the remaining five changes, four are more apparent than real. In the
case of 'Joseph' or Sophompaneas Kirkman conformed to custom by replacing
the name of the Latin author, Hugo Grotius, by that of the English trans-
lator, Francis Goldsmith (cf. Abraham's Sacrifice, p. 322). Three times,
where the prints offered a choice of authors, Kirkman's selection differed
from 'Archer's': thus he gave The Ball to Shirley instead of Chapman,
The Two Noble Kinsmen to Fletcher instead of Shakespeare, and The Old
Law to Middleton and Rowley instead of Massinger. This last suggests that
his intention was to add another name or names to 'Archer's' attributions, but
that through some oversight the addition was treated as a substitution.'
There remains one attribution of more than common interest. In Archer's
catalogue Alphonsus of Germany is ascribed to George Chapman in accord-
ance with the title-page of 1654: Kirkman, on the other hand, ascribed it to
George Peele.2 Now, on 9 September, 1653 Moseley, in preparation for his
edition the next year, had registered the play as 'by lohn Peele', an author
not otherwise known. It seems to me most unlikely (in spite of Sir Edmund
Chambers) that the entry in the Stationers' Register should have been the
source of Kirkman's attribution; but he may quite well have seen a manu-
script of the play bearing Peele's name (cf. The Merry Devil of Edmonton,
p. 315), and in view of some internal support that modern criticism has found
for the ascription, it may not be too rash to conclude that this is at least
partially correct. In any case Kirkman is likely to have had some cogent
reason for preferring a manuscript attribution to that of the print. It is true
that against this must be set Kirkman's reliance on the print in the curiously

I In cases of multiple authorship Kirkman's intention seems to have been to name all the partici-
pants. Thus Northward Ho, Westward Ho and Sir Thomas Wyat he gives to Dekker and Webster
('Archer' left the first unassigned, gave the second to Webster and the third to Dekker); The Travels
of the three English Brothers unassignedd by 'Archer') he gives to Day, William Rowley and Wilkins,
the signatories of the dedication; Dido he gives to Marlowe and Nashe ('Archer' named only the
former). The Widow (given by 'Archer' to Middleton) he gives to Middleton and Rowley, but this is
presumably an error, for the quarto of 1652 names Jonson and Fletcher as Middleton's collaborators.
But Kirkman is far from consistent. Thus Ferrex and Porrex is given to Thomas Norton alone, though
all early editions mention Thomas Sackville (or Lord Buckhurst) as joint author; and Fortune by Land
and Sea is given to Heywood, ignoring William Rowley, whose name also appears on the quarto of
1655. It should be mentioned that Kirkman is content to assign the whole of the Beaumont and Fletcher
canon to Fletcher-even the Gray's Inn masque, which all editions specify as Beaumont's-whereas
Archer's list, at any rate in the latter half, usually appends to these plays the initials 'F.B. Jo.F.'
2 In this he was followed by Winstanley in 1687, for which the latter was rebuked by Langbaine in

parallel case of 'Revenge for Honour. A Tragedie, by George Chapman'
that appeared the same year 1654. This play had been entered for publica-
tion by Richard Marriot on 29 December (probably), 1653, as 'by Henry
Glapthorne', an attribution that has been approved by the critic best quali-
fied to speak on the work of that author, and may be accepted as probably
correct (J. H. Walter in R.E.S., 1937, xIII 425-37).
I now pass to those plays that were entered without attribution in Archer's
list. Of these 93 remained anonymous in 1661: Kirkman assigned 82 others
in accordance with the early prints.' Further, he made thirteen attributions
that do not depend on, or else are at variance with, that evidence: four are
wrong, seven are presumably right, and two are in different ways question-
able. I begin with the errors. Alphonsus of Aragon was printed in 1599 as
by 'R.G.', meaning Robert Greene: it is of course only by a misprint that
Kirkman assigns it 'R.C.' The anonymous Two Wise Men and all the Rest
Fools Kirkman ascribed to Chapman, apparently by confusion or analogy
with All Fools. The initials 'E.W.' appended to Apollo Shroving (an anony-
mous school play believed to be by one William Hawkins) are taken from
an epistle that disclaims authorship. Lastly there is the elaborate misunder-
standing over Cynthia's Revenge. This play was printed in 1613 with an
epistle signed 'I.S.' and preliminaries that contemplate anonymous publica-
tion. Through some misunderstanding, however, the printer put the name
of the author, John Stephens, on the title-page, and it was some time before
the error was noticed and the name removed. The authorship is acknow-
ledged in another work by Stephens. Kirkman evidently saw a copy with
the initials only, and these he expanded to 'John Swallow' through a too
literal interpretation of the commendatory couplet:
One Swallow makes no Summer, most men say,
But who disproues that Prouerbe, made this Play
(P. Simpson in M.L.R., 1907, In 348-50). Though his ingenuity was mis-
placed it argued a genuine search for information
If Kirkman blundered about the authorship of the four plays just men-
tioned, he was right in identifying as Heywood's the two parts of If you
Know not Me you Know Nobody, 1605-6, which he calls by the subsidiary
title of Queen Elizabeth's Troubles, with 'the Play of Queene Elizabeth', a
I It is perhaps to Kirkman's credit that he assigned The Three Ladies of London to 'R.W.' (no
doubt Robert Wilson) according to the title-page of 1584, disregarding the name 'Paule Bucke'
(possibly a scribe's) at the end. As already mentioned he gave Beaumont's masque to Fletcher. His
attribution of The Strange Discovery to 'I.G.' shows that he had before him the earlier variant of the
1640 title-page, which bore initials only: the author's name 'Gough' was inserted in the course of
printing. For the name of the translator of Seneca's Hercules Oetaeus, John Studley, he may have gone
to the table of contents of the collection; but in fact the initials 'I.S.' given with the text would present
no difficulty, seeing that the full name was appended to three other plays in the volume.
2 Unless, of course, the ingenuity was that of some previous owner who expanded the initials on
the title-page.

prologue and epilogue for which are in Heywood's Dialogues and Dramas
of 1637; and the identification seems to imply some real knowledge of
dramatic affairs. On the other hand it required little ingenuity to recognize
the initials 'W.R.' on the 1638 quarto of A Shoemaker a Gentleman as those
of William Rowley; nor much familiarity with the drama to identify New-
castle as the 'Person of Honor' who wrote The Varieties, especially when
'Archer' had already assigned to him its companion piece, The Country
Captain (see p. 316). He gave the author of Imperiale as Sir Ralph Freeman,
apparently of his own knowledge, though 'Rogers' had already supplied
the surname in place of the initials 'R.F.' (see p. 308). Another attribution in
which he had been anticipated by 'Rogers' ('Archer' having in each case
reverted to anonymity) is that of The Queen of Aragon to William Habing-
ton (Kirkman being again the first to supply the christian name). The
ascription of the anonymous Blurt Master Constable and The Phoenix to
Middleton, which has been generally accepted, though apparently lacking
external confirmation, recall similar attributions in Archer's catalogue (see
p. 316).
There remain The Careless Shepherdess and Love in its Extasy, both
pastorals of a sort. The former was published in 1656 (with Rogers and
Ley's list) as 'Written by T.G. Mr. of Arts'. It seems likely that this was
intended to point to Thomas Goffe, whose 'Three Excellent Tragedies',
originally published separately in 1631-2, were reprinted together the same
year. If so, Kirkman's ascription is in accordance with the intention of the
publishers. On the other hand, there are good grounds for supposing that
the attribution cannot be correct (W. J. Lawrence in T.L.S., 24 July, 1924).I
'A kind of Royall Pastorall' called Love in its Extasy was, we learn from
the edition of 1649, written 'long since' by a 'Student at /Eton' in his seven-
teenth year. Kirkman names the author 'Peaps', and modern authorities,
apparently following the irresponsible Chetwood, have unwarrantably
bestowed on him the christian name of William. Langbaine at first accepted
Kirkman's attribution, but in the end decided to treat the piece as anony-
mous. We cannot guess what ground Kirkman had for his ascription, which
if correct argues a surprising knowledge; but it has this much confirmation
that there was in fact a boy 'Pepys', christian name unrecorded, who was
a commensal or oppidan at Eton in 1634 (Eton College Register, 1441-
1698, by Sir Wasey Sterry, 1943).
We have now dealt with all the plays that had previously appeared in
Archer's list. In 1661 Kirkman added just on a hundred new titles.2 Out of
I This attribution to Goffe, like the less defensible attribution of Selimus, was accepted by Langbaine.
2 Six of these, probably, had already figured in Rogers and Ley's catalogue and been omitted by
'Archer'. Certain are, Charles the First (1649), Shakespeare's King Lear, Brathwaite's (?) Mercurius
Britannicus, Chapman's (?) Revenge for Honour, and Middleton and Rowley's Sfpanish Gipsy. Further-

this number 22 were left anonymous, including Andromana by 'J.S.' (this was
registered as Shirley's), John Fountaine's Rewards for Virtue, Davenant's
Salmacida Spolia, and The Sun's Darling by Dekker and Ford, all of
which had been printed under their authors' names or initials. The name
of the author, Aurelian Townsend, appears at the end of some copies of
Albion's Triumph, 1631-2, but not in others. The Masque of Flowers has
an epistle signed with the initials I.G., W.D. and T.B., but they are not
necessarily those of the authors. I have already explained (p. 308) that when
Kirkman reinstated Mercurius Britannicus, which 'Archer' had omitted,
he did not repeat 'Rogers's' ascription to Brathwaite.
The number of new entries assigned in accordance with the early prints is
I believe 70. There are seven attributions made without, or in disregard of,
such authority. I have already spoken (p. 320) of the attribution to John
Heywood of the anonymous interludes Gentleness and Nobility, Johan Johan
and The Pardoner and the Friar. The Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru and
The History of Sir Francis Drake both appeared anonymously, but they
were recent publications of 1658 and 1659 respectively, and Davenant's
authorship must have been common knowledge. There are two bad errors.
'Masque at my Lord Hayes House' is, of course, Thomas Campion's
masque for the marriage of Lord Hay and Honora, daughter of Lord Denny
of Waltham, which was printed with his name in 1607: Kirkman's ascription
of it to Jonson is most likely due to confusion with the masque for the
marriage of Lord Haddington and Lady Elizabeth Ratcliffe the following
year. His ascription of 'Arthur. T', i.e. The Misfortunes of Arthur, to 'Nic.
Trotte' instead of Thomas Hughes shows that he glanced at the prologue
instead of consulting the heading or ending of the play itself.
Lastly we come to the additions made in the catalogue of 1671, of which 35
may be classed as pre-Restoration. Eight were restorations of titles that had
previously appeared. 'Rogers' recorded a play 'Jovall Crew, Shepheard' (see
p. 308), which 'Archer' omitted (see p. 311) and Kirkman only now restored:
he entered it, however, as anonymous, though the quarto of 1651 has the
words 'Written by S.S. Gent.' at the end, and one would have expected him
to know that these were the initials of Samuel Sheppard. The other seven
titles had figured in Archer's list but were omitted in 1661. The omission of
Ignoramus was correct and we may suppose deliberate, for in 1661 George
Ruggles's satire on the legal profession had only appeared in the original
Latin; but in 1662 an English translation by R.C. (believed to be Robert
Codrington) was published, and in 1671 Kirkman duly included it with
these initials. We may also suppose that Kirkman deliberately omitted
more Kirkman's 'Tyrannical Government' is presumably the same as 'Rogers's' entry (under T) 'The
Life of John the Baptist', since it must refer to Tyrannical Government Anatomized (1642), a translation
of George Buchanan's Bahtisles.

Shirley's Contentionfor Honour and Riches (1633) in 1661, when he included
the expanded version of the same, published in 1659 under the title of
Honoria and Mammon; but he changed his mind in 1671 and recorded both
versions. The rest were probably omitted by accident in 1661. Hoffman
reappeared without 'Archer's' absurd ascription to Shakespeare. The
dramatic skit The Levellers Levelled (1647), which had been in both the
1656 lists, reappeared anonymously in spite of bearing the pseudonym
'Mercurius Pragmaticus', which may indicate the authorship of Marchmont
Nedham. The other three pieces to reappear are The Four P's, Hymenaei and
Oberon the Faery Prince; Kirkman assigned the interlude to John Heywood
and the masques to Jonson in accordance with the printed editions. One
might in fairness add two other masques of Jonson's to the list of resurrec-
tions, for though the Masques of Blackness and Beauty (included in 1671
under 'Queens') had not previously appeared under their own titles, Archer's
list has the laconic entry 'Characters M', which doubtless refers to the 16o08
title-page: 'The Characters of two royall Masques. The one of Blacknesse,
the other of Beautie' (cf. p. 321).
Two titles present in 1661 disappeared in 1671. The case of Don Quixot
I have already explained (p. 319). The other was Crafty Cromwell, a skit in
two parts printed in 1648. Kirkman may have confused it with the play
Cromwell's Conspiracy (1660) which he also included in 1661 and retained
in 1671. Other alterations made in 1671 are as follows.' Andria and Satiro-
mastix ('Untrussing the humourous Poet') lose their attributions to Bernard
and Dekker respectively, no doubt through accident. The Hector of Germany,
assigned in 1661 to 'W. Smith' in accordance with the edition of 1615, is
in 1671 given the initials 'W.S.' only: whether this is significant I do not
know. Locrine, assigned in 1661 to 'W.S.' in accordance with the quarto of
1595, was in 1671 assigned to 'Will. Shakespear' after its inclusion in the
third folio in 1664. More curious is the case of Ram Alley. The quartos
give the author's name as 'Lo: Barrey' (1611) or 'Lo. Barrey' (1636). In
1661 Kirkman was content with 'Lo. Barrey', but in 1671 he interpreted
this as 'Lord Barrey', possibly in accordance with the printer's intention,
for Anthony Wood does the same.2 There is little doubt that the author was
the 'Lording Barry' who acquired an interest in the Whitefriars theatre in
16o8, and this has been taken to be a courtesy title of David Barry, eldest
son of Viscount Buttevant (Chambers, Elizabethan Stage, III 215, and
authorities there cited). However, it now appears that this Lording Barry
I By a misprint in 1671 Kirkman ascribed The Longer thou Livest the More Fool thou Art to
'W. Wayer' instead of W. Wager. This, in conjunction with further blunders by Phillips and Langbaine,
is responsible for the attribution of The Trial of Chivalry to a wholly imaginary William Wayer in
the British Museum catalogue.
2 The 'Lodowick' Barry to whom bibliographers have credited the play is an invention of Lang-

was the son of a Nicholas Barry who had married one Anne Lording
(C. L'Estrange Ewen in N. &' Q., I February, 1938). Five fresh attributions
added in 1671 are of special interest. Tamburlaine is assigned to Marlowe.
From several vaguer allusions we may conclude that the authorship of this
play had been common knowledge for over three-quarters of a century, but
the present appears to be the first explicit attribution. And four other anony-
mous plays, Edward IV, The Fair Maid of the Exchange and The Downfall
and Death of Robert Earl of Huntingdon, are ascribed to Thomas Heywood.
Of these pieces Edward IV has been generally accepted as his on internal
grounds, in spite of the fact that Heywood is not known to have written for
the company, Derby's, that acted it., Critical opinion has on the whole been
less favourable to the ascription of The Fair Maid of the Exchange, and
there is the possibility that Kirkman confused it with The Fair Maid of the
West. Langbaine accepted the ascription in 1688 but doubted it in 1691.2
Lastly, the two Huntingdon or Robin Hood plays are known to have been
written by Munday and Chettle, whom Henslowe paid for them in 1598: but
Langbaine repeated the ascription without question.
The other 25 pre-Restoration plays added in 1671 are all assigned in
accordance with the early editions. It may be mentioned that Kirkman
failed to recognize Love will Find out the Way, published as 'By T.B.' in
1661, as a reprint of Shirley's Constant Maid (1640), although the sheets
were reissued in 1667 with a new title-leaf giving both titles and 'I.S.' as
the author's initials.
The remaining 90 titles or so added in 1671 belong to what may fairly
be classed as post-Restoration plays.3 My own knowledge of these is in-
adequate, and the authorities at my immediate disposal are too unreliable,
to allow of any profitable discussion; I therefore pass them over with the
remark that being contemporary pieces one would expect Kirkman to be
correctly informed about them, and that he should have known better than
to call Mrs Aphra Behn 'Astrea Bien', and the matchless Orinda 'Mr. Rat.
We are now in a position to draw up a sort of balance-sheet for Kirkman's
reliability in the matter of attributions. On the credit side the more important
items seem to be the ascription of Alphonsus of Germany to Peele in defiance
of the title-page, and those of If you Know not Me to Heywood, Imperiale
1 Seymour de Ricci, who in 1922 edited a facsimile of the only known copy of the first edition of
1599, spoke of Heywood's authorship as though it were an ascertained fact. Chambers thinks that the
'three mans Song' in Part I (sig. F4v), 'Agencourt, Agencourt, know ye not Agencourt', must be
Drayton's; but the necessity is not obvious to me.
2 Phil. Aronstein, in a careful study of the play (Englische Studien, 1912, XLV 45-60), concluded
that it was the work of a young academic imitator of Jonson and Shakespeare, to which Heywood
contributed the few scenes constituting one of the sub-plots.
3 Including Cowley's Cutter of Coleman Street (1663), a revision of The Guardian (1650), and the
Second Part of Davenant's Siege of Rhodes (1663), of which the First Part appeared in 1656.

to Sir Ralph Freeman and The Queen of Aragon to Sir William Berkeley;
but the rejection of Dekker's authorship of The Bloody Banquet and the
restoration of the initials 'T.D.', and the record of Marlowe's authorship of
Tamburlaine (belated as it is) and Middleton's of Blurt Master Constable
and The Phoenix should also be allowed weight. To his discredit stand the
muddled attribution of The Country Girl to Anthony Brewer, and in vary-
ing degree the ascription of The Downfall and Death of Robert Earl of
Huntingdon to Heywood, Two Wise Men to Chapman, Apollo Shroving to
'E.W.', Lord Hay's masque to Jonson, and The Misfortunes of Arthur
to Trotte; and one may be inclined to add the continued attribution of
The Arraignment of Paris and Mucedorus to Shakespeare. I hardly know
whether the ingenuity shown over Cynthia's Revenge should be counted to
his credit, or its misapplication to his discredit, but its ascription to the
mythical John Swallow certainly does not enhance his authority. However,
for the first time there is perhaps on the whole a credit balance. The debat-
able ascriptions that rest solely on Kirkman's authority, those of Edward IV
and The Fair Maid of the Exchange to Thomas Heywood and that of
Love in its Extasy to 'Peaps', are none of them of the first importance. On
the whole, while Kirkman showed some diligence in consulting the printed
editions and was a good deal more careful in presenting the information
drawn from them than his predecessors had been, the results of his boasted
opportunities of acquiring knowledge about the pre-Restoration drama can
only be described as disappointing.'
I Since writing of Mercurius Britannicus on pp. 308-9, my attention has been directed to the chief
modern study of Brathwaite, namely M. W. Black's Richard Brathwait, an account of his life and
works, Philadelphia, 1928. Black accepts the play as authentic, without, however, discussing the evidence,
and holds it 'decisive for Brathwait's political and religious views'. On the whole the probability seems
in favour of the Latin at least being his: Sir Richard Hutton, who is eulogized under the name of
Hortensius, was Brathwaite's kinsman and godfather (on whose death he wrote the elegy Astraea's
Tears the same year), and there are resemblances with another Latin 'Tragi-Comoedia', Regicidium,
printed as Brathwaite's in 1665.








SIN CE THE ISSUE of the first Supplement at the end of 1944 twenty-six
incunabula have been added to the Library. Twenty-four have been
purchased from the Reid of Lauriston Castle Fund, one (no. 176.5) has been
presented by Mr J. A. Petrie, Edinburgh, and one (no. 44.5) by Mr R. S.
Hayward and Miss I. M. Hayward, Galashiels. These books are now de-
scribed below together with three (no. 277.5, 284.5, 304.5) recently discovered
and two others (no. 266, 278) which are bound in the same volume as the
last of these and which are mentioned both in the 1913 hand-list and the
1944 supplement to it. A copy of the Mainz Catholicon (no. 6.5) has been
deposited by the Marquess of Linlithgow.
Thanks are again due to Dr Scholderer for reading proofs and for making
suggestions and corrections. A second generous grant towards the cost of
facsimiles is gratefully acknowledged to the Carnegie Trust for the Uni-
versities of Scotland.

6.5 BALBUS, JOANNES. Catholicon. Fol. Goth.
[Printer of the Catholicon:] Mainz, 1460.
Gesamtkatalog 3182. BMC. I, p. 39, IC. 301, 2, 3. The present copy is
one of those without printed Incipit and with a three-line space between end
of text and colophon, printed on paper watermarked either with a tower
or with a crown.
400 x 290 mm. The outer margins are waterstained at the foot through-
out. There is some worming at the beginning and end. Rubricated. Early
binding of stamped pigskin over wooden boards, with metal corners and
the remains of clasps. Vellum tags. On a fly-leaf is written in an eighteenth-
century hand: . 8s. With the book-plate of the Earl of Hopetoun. This is
the copy recorded in S. de Ricci, Catalogue raisonn6 des premieres impres-
sions de Mayence, p. 138 (no. 105), as having been lost sight of after the
Hopetoun Sale of February, 1889. Deposited by the Marquess of Linlithgow
in March, 1946.

44.5 FERRERIUS, VINCENTIUs. Sermones de tempore hiemali. Sermones
de sanctis. Fol. Goth.
[Heinrich Quentell:] Cologne, 1487.
Part of Voulli6me 413. BMC. I, p. 271, IB. 4533 (Sermones de sanctis only).
Collation of pt i: A-C8 D6 E8 F8 G6 H-K8 L6 M-P8 Q6 R-X8 y6 Z8 aa8 bb6
cc6 dd8 [eelo], 212 leaves, 202 and 203 blank. Leaf 01 is wrongly signed Pi.


285 x 205 mm. In pt I leaf 2 is wanting and leaf 6 mutilated to the extent
of about half of the text. The first and last leaves of the volume have been
repaired. Initials and paragraph-marks supplied in blue or red. On leaf 2
of the Sermones de sanctis there is a large initial in blue, green and red.
Boards. Presented by Mr Robert S. Hayward and Miss Ida M. Hayward,
F.L.S., Galashiels, in June, 1945.

46.3 BERNARDUS. Floretus cum comment. 4. Goth.
[Heinrich Quentell: Cologne, about 1494.]
Gesamtkatalog 4007. BMC. I, p. 293, IA. 4883. The latest of three undated
editions printed by Quentell.
196 x 134 mm. Some initials supplied in red. Many of the printed initials
have been filled with yellow. Bound before Poeniteas cito, [G. Back]
Antwerp, 24 February, 1496 (no. 314.7) and Theodulus, Ecloga, H. Quen-
tell, Cologne, ii February, 1495 (no. 46.7). Nineteenth-century calf. From
the library of Sir Duncan Campbell, 3rd Bart, of Barcaldine (1856-1926).
Bought in July, 1945.

46.7 THEODULUS. Ecloga cum comment. 4. Goth.
Heinrich Quentell: Cologne, I I February, 1495.
BMC. I, p. 284, IA. 4633.
196 x 134 mm. Two initials on 2a supplied in red. Many of the printed
initials have been filled with yellow. Bound after Bernardus, Floretus, [H.
Quentell, Cologne, 1494] (no. 46.3) and Poeniteas cito, [G. Back] Antwerp,
24 February, 1496 (no. 314.7). On 5Ib is written: Fr loannes de thore (?)
aliquando fuit possessor huius voluminis.
*** The commentary is not that of Eudes le Picard found in the editions
printed by P. Levet and A. Caillaut at Paris in 1487 and 1491 (Polain,
Belgique 3682-3) and apparently also in that printed by P. Levet at Paris
about 1495 (no. 261 in the present collection) and in that ascribed to P. Reg-
nault at Caen about 1500 (Polain, Belgique 3681).


79.7 SALICETO, NICOLAUS DE. Antidotarius animae. 160. Goth.
[Caspar Hochfeder: Nuremberg, about 1498.]
Collation: a-z8 A-L8 M4, 276 leaves, the last blank, 2-275 numbered
I-CCLXXIIII. 23 lines and foliation. Ia. TITLE: (red) Liber medita-
tionum 11 ac orationum deuota [I rum qui Anthidota- 11 rius anime
dicitur ite 1] rum atqi iterum C( di 11 ligentissime pspectus 11 et ac-
curatissime emen- 1i datus incipit feliciter 2a. (red) Nicolai saliceti
artia z medicine I[ doctors: abbat? monasterij btE ma, |1 rie de pomerio
(alias bomgart) ordi I] nis cistercieni. Argetinefi. dyocesis in || anthidotaria
aie prefaciuncula. 275b, 1. 18. END: (black) . vt deside | rata nobis tue
participatanis habit |1 dancid multiplicatis intercessorib9 |1 largiaris. Per

Hochfeder's types 7 and 8 (61 and 107 mm.) according to Proctor's
enumeration, the larger type being used for the title only. Lombardic initials
6 x 6 and 16 x 16 mm., but type 7 shows here no admixture of Lombards.
98 x 70 mm. The inner margins of a number of leaves have been repaired.
At the beginning and end are several leaves of notes in an early hand. Dark
brown crushed morocco by Maltby, Oxford. With the oval book-plate of
James P. R. Lyell. Bought in May, 1945.
*** This edition, which appears to be unrecorded, is probably later than
the other unsigned and undated edition printed with the same types and
containing 284 leaves (BMC. II, p. 478, IA. 8230).


81.3 OFFICIUM de compassion beatae Mariae virginis. 4. Goth.
[Conrad Hist: Speyer, after o10 February, 1491.]1
Hain-Copinger *12001. Collation: a6, six leaves. Conrad Hist's types I
(title), 4 (with admixture of capitals from 2) and 5, measuring 18o, 92 and
71 mm.
172 x 134 mm. Modern vellum. Bought in October, 1944.
*** As in the Breuiarium Spirense now assigned to Johann Grfininger
at Strasburg (Gesamtkatalog 5465), the Office is preceded by a pastoral
letter of Ludovicus, Bishop of Speyer, dated o10 February, 1491. The
present edition may be considerably later than 1491, as, according to
BMC., Hist did not take into use his type 5 till 1495.


86.5 JACOBUS DE VORAGINE. Legenda aurea. Fol. Goth.
[Johann Otmar:] Reutlingen, 1485.
Copinger 6440. Proctor t2708. Collation: a8 b6 c8 d8 e-m8"6 n8 o-z8"6
A-V8'6 X8, 312 leaves, the last blank. 2 columns. 45 lines to a column, also
head-line. Initial blanks. Ia. TITLE: Lombardica historic 2a. Incipit tabula
sup legedas sancto. |1 . I2b, col. I, 1. 31: Finit tabula feliciter 13a. Incipit
prologus super legedas san 1 ctorum. quas collegit in vnum frater Ia ||
cobus ianuensis ordinis fratrum predica || rorum 14b, col. 2,1. 26: Registrum
explicit I5a. Incipit legend sanctorf. . 31 1b, Col. 2, 1. I I. COLOPHON:
(large type) Expliciunt quo || (small type) rundam sanctorum legend ad I|
iuncte post Lombardicam hy- 11 storia. Impresse in Reuttlinge 1| Anno
diii. Mcccclxxxv. Otmar's types 4 and 5 (175 and 95 mm.). As in Bona-
ventura, Sermones de tempore et de sanctis, 1485 (Gesamtkatalog 4814),
large semi-roman capitals are here used with type 4 for numeration.
285 x 204 mm. Initials supplied in red. Original stamped pigskin over
wooden boards with one clasp and the remains of the other, lined with
printed leaves showing Otmar's types 4 and 6 (175 and 82 mm.). On Ia is
written: Liber Conuentus Essling'" f-rm Eremita. Scti Augustini Dono
datus a Venerando dino Johanne Hepp Sacerdote fautore s'gulari puentus
1509. On ia is written in another hand 'Empt9 p fl', and in the top cover

in the same hand: Hfic libr' dedit puetui esslingesi Vener s dfin Jo-s Hepp
quodam pbendari' h[u]i' Puet9 vt ex eo frfs legit et discat Qui et' dedit
nobis biblia vnd et glosa3 psalt'ii mgri sentetia4 [Petri Lombardi] et glosd
psalt'ii Johis d' turre cremata Et sermones simonis d' cremona et alia t'ia
opuscula 1509. On Ia is further written: David Augustus Cruse. E Coll.
Univ. Oxon. 1886. Bought in May, 1945.


93.5 ANDREAE, JOANNES. Summa de sponsalibus et matrimoniis. 4.
[Gregorius Battiger: Leipzig, about 1492-7.]
Gesamtkatalog 1754.
192 x 135 mm. Rubricated. On Ib is a long note in an early hand. From
the library of Walter B. Slater. Bought in February, 1945.
*** B6ttiger's type I shows here both forms of a, f and long s but only
one form of A, S (bag-shaped) and V. The watermarks are a serpent
wreathed round a rod and a rudimentary p.


99.5 LOCHER, JACOBUS. Historia de rege Franciae cum nonnullis aliis
versibus et elegiis. 4. Goth.
[Friedrich Riedrer: Freiburg im Breisgau, after 5 November, 1495.]
Hain ioi6i. Collation: a-d6 e4, 28 leaves, the last blank. 36 lines to a full
page. Riedrer's types 2 and 3 (140 and 82 mm.) with calligraphic initials
about 35 x 35 mm. Musical notes on staves. Riedrer's second device at the
foot of the last printed page.
192 x 132 mm. Many leaves have been repaired. Crushed scarlet morocco.
From the library of Sir Israel Gollancz. Bought in April, 1945.
See facsimile *I.


100.5 POGGIUS FLORENTINUS. Facetiae. 4. Goth.
[Printer of Leo, Sermones: ? Germany, about 1475.]
Hain *13182. Collation: [a-110], I o leaves, the last blank.
185 x 130 mm. Rubricated. Large initial on Ia in blue. Notes in an early
hand. Eighteenth-century straight-grained green morocco. Bought in
December, 1945.
*** The type with which this book is printed is a narrow angular gothic
(about 109 mm., with M61) rather like those used by the Printer of the
Speculum at Utrecht. It is found in Leo I, Sermones (Campbell 1104,

Proctor 3248) and in the editions of Gerson, De pollution nocturna, etc.,
and Pius II, Epistola ad Mahumetem described in Dr Collijn's catalogue
of the incunabula in the Royal Library at Stockholm (no. 452, 857). The
first of these books is illustrated on pl. 1900 n of the Type Facsimile
Society and on pl. 1765 of the Gesellschaft fuir Typenkunde. In the present
book 0, S and T are roman, and there are alternative roman forms of a and
t and the ligatures ct and st.
Proctor appears to have been right in ascribing the Leo to Germany
rather than to Holland. No book from this press is recorded as surviving in
the Netherlands, the two described by Dr Collijn were formerly at Olmiitz,
the watermarks in the present book are related to Briquet no. 14541-3 and
14857, which are German, and the marginal notes are in Latin or German.
See facsimile *II.


159.5 CAMPORA, GIACOMO. Loica volgare o Dialogo dell' immortality
dell' anima. 80. Rom.
Guilelmus Anima Mia, Tridinensis: Venice, 12 April, 1494.
Gesamtkatalog 5952. Type 8 is here found in its second state as described
in BMC. V, p. 409. Initial blanks usually filled by woodcut initials about
15 x 15 mm. from three sets, two black-on-white and the third white-on-
black. On 3a is M of white interlaced branch-work on black ground,
23 x 23 mm.
147 x 99 mm. Modern vellum. Bought in May, 1945.
168.5 MANCINELLUS, ANTONIUS. Scribendi orandique modus. 4. Rom.
Christophorus de Pensis (de Mandello): Venice, 4 June, 1496.
Hain *Io595. Proctor 15236. Collation: A-C8, 24 leaves. Types 7 (heading
on Ia) and 8, measuring about 109 and 80/8I mm. A few words in Greek
appear to be printed with De Pensis 80. On 2a is an ornamental initial 0
white-on-black, 27 x 23 mm.
208 x 152 mm. There are several worm-holes, and the text of the last
leaf is affected. An inscription has been erased from the first leaf. Several
leaves are stained. Modern boards. Bought in February, 1945-

176.5 ANTONINUS. Confessionale Defecerunt. Titulus de restitutionibus.
4. Rom.
[Philippus Pincius: Venice, 2 June, 1495.]1
Gesamtkatalog 2134. The seventh quire consists of six sheets signed g
i-vi; between the tenth and eleventh leaves is inserted a quire of two sheets
signed g iii and g iv.
202 x 144 mm. Without the last (colophon) leaf. The first (title) leaf
and several others have been repaired. Boards with vellum back and
corners. Presented by J. A. Petrie, Edinburgh, in July, 1944.
*** The Gesamtkatalog describes this book as printed throughout with
Pincius type 15 (80o mm.). In the present copy, quires a-e and leaves fl-6

are printed with a 77 mm. type similar to T. de Ragazonibus 77/78
[Haebler 13] except for P, always a little below the line, in place of 9; it
has single hyphens short, long and long reversed. The remainder of the
book is printed with Pincius type 15.
189.5 JUSTINIANUS, SEBASTIANUS. Oratio habitat coram Vladislao rege
Pannoniae, Bohemiae, etc. 4. Goth.
[Bernardinus Venetus, de Vitalibus: Venice, not before April, 1500.]
Hain-Reichling 9645. Type 4 (85 mm.) of Bernardinus. On ia is an inverted
woodcut initial A 33 mm. square, used for V.
212 x 145 mm. Bought in July, 1945.
** Bernardinus also printed an unsigned and undated edition in Italian
(BMC. V, p. 549, IA. 24349).


228.5 JOANNES DE IMOLA. Repetitio ca. Tuae fraternitatis extra.
De sponsalibus. Fol. Goth.
[Joannes Walbeck:] Bologna, [1493.]
Hain-Reichling 9157 (2). Ia. Incipit ... Tue fra I| ternitatis ... Walbeck's
types i and 2 (88 and about 190 mm.) of Dr Haebler's numeration.
390 x 264 mm. Bought in July, 1945.
*** Hain 9157 includes the present work preceded by the same author's
Repetitio c. fina. extra. De prescriptionibus signed by Walbeck and dated
30 September, 1493.

243.5 VOLSCUS, ANTONIUS. Expositiones in Heroidas Ouidii et Carmen
de morte Drusi. Fol. Rom.
Andreas Portilia: Parma, 8 September, 1481.
Accurti II 79, describing a copy at Parma. Collation: [*2] a8 b8 c6 d8 e6 f6
g-i8 K6, 74 leaves, the first blank. Usually 39 lines but varying from
ANTONIVS VOLSCVS .S.P.D. II| cVm iter sfimas occupationes ... 2b,
1. 9: OVIDII VITA ... 3a, 1. 3: ... VLYXEM ... 65b, 1. 19: ...
Qui Legeris. ... 74b, 1. 18: ... expressit. || Vale ... 1. 22: ... SeptEbris 11.
Type 4 (99 mm.) with both forms of single Qu.
281 x 199 mm. Leaves I, 2, 3 and o10 and the first and last leaves of the
last quire have been repaired. Notes in an early hand. Old vellum. From
the library of Mrs C. M. Anderson. Bought in July, 1945.
*** This is the first edition of the commentary on the Heroides and
presumably the only separate one. Portilia's undated edition of the text
(BMC. VII, p. 938, IB. 30272) was perhaps issued about the same time.
No other edition of the commentary on the Consolatio de morte Drusi
appears to be known. The first sheet (blank leaf and dedication, etc.) is
wanting in the copies described by Accurti and by Pollard (Catalogue of

the Annmary Brown collection, no. 340). The later editions of the
commentary on the Heroides with the text, the first being that completed
by T. de Blavis at Venice on 24 April, 1484 (BMC. V, p. 317, IB. 21843),
are dedicated to Ludovicus Diaedus. The present edition was recorded by
Panzer (II, p. 354, no. *23), and a complete copy, now in the Huntington
Library, was described in La Bibliofilia xvI, p. 355, no. 59.


254.3 BERNARDUS. Meditationes. 4. Goth.
[Louis Martineau and Antoine Caillaut: Paris, about 1482-5.]
Gesamtkatalog 4027.
196 x 138 mm. Without the blank last leaf. The top margin of leaf I
has been repaired. Nineteenth-century calf. With the book-label of C. Inglis,
M.D., scalloped. From the library of Mrs C. M. Anderson. Bought in
July, 1945.
*%* The first page is reproduced on pl. 1886 of the Gesellschaft fiur
Typenkunde. Martineau and Caillaut's type 3 shows here two forms of F,
O and Q.

266 MAGISTRIS, MARTINUS DE. Tractatus consequentiarum. 4. Rom.
Wolfgang Hopyl: Paris, 1489.
Copinger-Reichling 3739. Claudin II, p. 67, with facsimiles of title and
end. Type I (80 mm.).
191 x 130 mm. Bound after Bricot, Tractatus insolubilium, Paris, 1504,
Buridanus, Sophismata and Alliaco, Conceptus et insolubilia, J. Lambert
for D. Roce, [Paris, 1500] (no. 278, 277.5). First mentioned in the 186o

270.5 GERSON, JOHANNES. De passionibus animae. 80. Goth.
[Philippe Pigouchet: Paris, about 1491-9.]
Pellechet-Polain 5206. Pigouchet's types 2 (text), 4 and 5 (headings),
measuring 64/5, about 130 and about 76 mm.
137 x 90 mm. Rubricated. Eighteenth-century sheepskin rebacked.
Bought in April, 1946.

277.5 ALLIACO, PETRUS DE. Conceptus et insolubilia. 4. Goth.
Jean Lambert for Denis Roce: Paris, [about 1500.]
Reichling 805. Types 2 and 3 (about 18o and 64 mm.). Small Lombards.
191 x 130 mm. Bound after Bricot, Tractatus insolubilium, Paris, 1504
and Buridanus, Sophismata, J. Lambert for D. Roce, [Paris, 1500] (no.
278), q.v. and before Magistris, Tractatus consequentiarum, Hopyl, Paris,
1489 (no. 266). First mentioned in the 1879 catalogue.

278 BURIDANUS, JOHANNES. Sophismata. 4. Goth.
Jean Lambert for Denis Roce: [Paris, about 1500.]

Gesamtkatalog 5758. Proctor t8296. On 2a is an ornamental initial white-
on-black, 19 x 19 mm.
191 x 130 mm. Bound after Bricot, Tractatus insolubilium, Paris, 1504
and before Alliaco, Conceptus et insolubilia, J. Lambert for D. Roce,
[Paris, 1500oo] (no. 277.5) and Magistris, Tractatus consequentiarum,
Hopyl, Paris, 1489 (no. 266). Eighteenth-century mottled sheepskin
rebacked and repaired. First mentioned in the 186o catalogue.
See facsimile *Iii.

279.5 BRICOT, THOMAS. Insolubilia. Obligationes. 4. Goth.
Pierre Le Dru [for Jacques Moerart:] Paris, 15 October, 1494.
Gesamtkatalog 5522, describing a copy in Rome.
201 x 136 mm. Without the (blank ?) last leaf. Rubricated. Nineteenth-
century calf. From the library of Sir Duncan Campbell, 3rd Bart, of
Barcaldine. Bought in July, 1945.

284.5 BADIUS, JODOCUs. Ascensius. Stultiferae nauis additamentum de
quinque virginibus. 4. Rom.
Thielmann Kerver for Enguilbert de Marnef: Paris, 18 February,
Gesamtkatalog 3155. Proctor 8394. BM., IA. 40991, 2.
185 x 125 mm. A short inscription at the top of Ia has been erased.
Bound before Badius, Nauis stultiferae collectanea, De Marnef, Paris,
1515. Eighteenth-century mottled sheepskin. First mentioned in the i86o
*** Dr Scholderer points out in his Hand-list of incunabula in the
National Library of Wales (no. 74) that the statement in the colophon
that this book was completed annoo iubileo' shows that it belongs to 1500
and not 1500/1.

292.5 BERNARDUS. Floretus cum comment Johannis Gerson. 4.
[Jacques Maillet: Lyons, about 1497.]
Gesamtkatalog 4017. The small marginal watermarks are a fleur-de-lis, a
heart and a knot.
235 x 165 mm. The inner margins of some leaves have been repaired.
There is a little worming. On Ia is written: F. F. Min. Conuentualium Ord:
S. Francisci. Friburgi Heluetiorum. Wooden boards partially covered
with vellum, with a clasp. Bought in January, 1946.


300.7 HUGO DE SANCTO CARO. Speculum ecclesiae. Speculum
sacerdotum. 4. Goth.

[Printer of Le Livre des prestres: ? Poitiers, about 1485.]
Brunet, Suppl6ment I, col. 660. Copinger 3190. The first and third sheets
of the first quire are signed ai and 2; and the first, third and fifth sheets
of the second quire are signed bi, 2 and 3. Ia. Incipit tractatus excelletis-
simi domini hu |1 gonis primi cardinalis ordinis predicato. qui 1| nficupatur
speculfi ecclesie. de numero / ordie / z |1 significatione sacerdotalium
vestium III Rubrica prima II| [D] Icit eni3 apostolus ... 19a, 1. 23. miseri-
cordi5 dei significant. que precedit. z subse |1 quit homine in bonis operi-
bus: |1 Explicit speculum ecclesie 19b. Incipit speculum
sacerdotum volenciu3 If celebrare missam |1 ... 20b, 1. 23. END: Istic
comperies. hoc igitur repetas III Explicit speculum sacerdotum.:.
Initial iMlanks, only one (on 8b) having a guide-letter.
204 x 141 mm. Rubricated. Crushed brown morocco by Riviere & Son.
Bought in February, 1945.
*** This book is printed with the 101/102 mm. type with Dr Haebler's
M38, used in Le livre des pretres (Copinger 3622) and Raymundus,
Summa metrificata (Proctor 8754), both of which are without mention of
printer, place and date but are assigned tentatively to Poitiers by A.
Claudin in his Origines ... de l'imprimerie h Poitiers, pp. 71-4 and his
Bibliographie (no. LXXII and LXXVI) and are illustrated on pl. LXI-LXIV
of his Monuments. The type resembles Bouyer's type i except for d with
straight shank. In the present book it shows frequent use of final D in
place of 9, which hardly ever occurs. The watermarks are a shell sur-
mounted by a cross (almost identical with Briquet no. 4508) and a small
shield bearing a cross and surmounted by another cross.
See facsimile *IV.


304.5 GUILLIBERTUS TORNACENSIS. Sermones. Fol. Goth.
Johannes de Paderborn: Louvain, [about 1481-3.]
Campbell *896 and suppl. i. Polain, Belgique 1842. Proctor 9257. B.M.,
IB. 49228, 9.
272 x 200 mm. Without the blank first and last two leaves. Early nine-
teenth-century stamped russia leather. First mentioned in the 1879


313.5 GERARDUS ZUTPHANIENSIS. Tractatulus de spiritualibus
ascensionibus. 8'. Goth.
[Jacobus de Breda: Deventer, about 1485-7.]
Campbell *797.
135 x 96 mm. Without the blank first and two last leaves. Rubricated, a
large initial on 2a being supplied in red and blue. Old vellum over boards.

From the library of Sir Israel Gollancz. Bought in April, 1945.
*** As in Campbell and in Polain, Belgique (no. 1581), this book is
assigned here to Breda. But the 90 mm. type with which it is printed may
be either Richard Pafraet's type I in its second state or Breda's type I.
It shows neither of the two forms of 9 which appear to be peculiar to
Breda's type and to distinguish it from Pafraet's, according to the evidence
set out in Mr L. A. Sheppard's article 'Printing at Deventer in the
fifteenth century' in the Library, 4th ser., xxIV, p. 112.

314.5 SALOMON et Marcolphus. 4. Goth.
[Jacobus de Breda: Deventer, about 1494-1500.]
Copinger 5240. Campbell 459. Breda's types 3 (first line of title), 4 (text)
and 8 (first line of 2a), measuring 180, 80 and 100 mm. Type 3 has here
angular C feathered.
187 x 134 mm. The corners of most of the leaves have been repaired.
On Ib are written the names: Richard elde, John heworth and Thomas
Jaxson. On Iob is written: thomas smyth. Dark maroon straight-grained
morocco. With the book-plate of Jeremiah James Colman. From the
library of Sir Israel Gollancz. Bought in May, 1945.


314.7 POENITEAS cito cum duplici comment. 4. Goth.
[Govaerd Back:] Antwerp, 24 February, 1496.
Polain, Belgique 3225, describing an imperfect copy in the Royal Library,
196 x 134 mm. Initial on 2a supplied in red. The device and some of the
printed initials have been lightly tinted. Bound between Bernardus,
Floretus, [H. Quentell, Cologne, 1494] (no. 46.3) and Theodulus, Ecloga,
H. Quentell, Cologne, I I February, 1495 (no. 46.7).

314.8 ALBERTUS MAGNUS. Secreta mulierum et virorum cum com-
mento. 4. Goth.
Govaerd Back: [Antwerp, about 1496-1500.]
A variant of Gesamtkatalog 746. Collation: A-F8'4, 36 leaves. Is. TITLE:
(black) I (red) ncipiunt . .. virori .. 11 .. c5posita III|| (black)
DEVICE [Haebler IV] I (red) [three lines of border ornaments.] 2a, 1. 34:
(black) Tytulus | . mulie. et virorum l| 2b *. . i . . augu-
mt . ... ... na l ... infirmatib... 9a. lum .. ua pt ... n5
uutrimEtalis. Et ideo vi |i ... 35b, 1. 32: ... instrument. qr sunt in ,vtute ||
aie z ... 36a, 1. 7: ... securitas tranquillitas || iocaditas z ... oim |I p
S.. seculo. . i . huius . ma= |1 gni est. Per . .Back.
177 x 128 mm. Nineteenth-century calf. From the library of Sir Duncan
Campbell, 3rd Bart, of Barcaldine. Bought in July, 1945.



317.5 CATO. El Cat6n en latin y en la traslaci6n romance de Gonzalo
Garcia de Santa Maria. 4. Goth.
[Paul Hurus: Saragossa, about 1493.]
Gesamtkatalog 6383. Haebler, Bibliografia Iberica 140. Both describe a
copy, now lost, in Madrid. Ia. TITLE: ... caton .. romance. 11 Ib. Prologo
... garcia ... 1| sancta ... obre3illa ... .| .. caton ... micer ... 1 ...
tra sladada ... |1 ([ Dos ... 5a. CVm. . Hurus's type 3 shows here
frequent use of the paragraph-mark with the upper tip longer than the
202 x 145 mm. There are some worm-holes in the blank margins of most
leaves. The last leaf is mutilated, the outer half of the twelve last lines of
text being lost. Bound after Lopez de Mendoza, Los proverbios, Ungut
and Stanislaus Polonus, Seville, 15 November, 1494 (no. 321.5), q.v.


321.5 LOPEZ DE MENDOZA, INIGO. Los proverbios, con la glosa
del Marqu6s y de Pedro Diaz de Toledo.
VALERA, DIEGO DE. El tratado de providencia contra fortune. 4.
Meinard Ungut and Stanislaus Polonus: Seville, 15 November,
Haebler, Bibliografia Ibirica 425. Proctor 9533. B.M., IA. 52378. Ia, 1. 2:
... MEdoga c5 ... 2a, 1. 2: ... Yfiigo. .. Mendoga: al cen 1I tiloquio ...
q fi || 3o ... nio senior el |1 rey ... esclarescida .. pa |1 ... 88b, 1. 3:
santillana ... || ... conpue . 1. 9: ... nouienbre ... 1I ... quatro
cientos. ....
202 x 145 mm. Bound before Cato, El Cat6n en latin [Paul Hurus:
Saragossa, about 1493] (no. 317.5). Old stamped leather, damaged and
wormed, over wooden boards with a clasp. Bought in February, 1945.


p. 161, no. 4 TURRECREMATA
The third book-plate may be that of Talbot Baines Reed, at the end of whose
History of the old English letter foundries (1887) there appears a variant of
the cut, larger and with the motto: REST .:. PRAY .:. SLEEP.
p. 165, no. 42 ALBERTUS MAGNUS
1. 3: for Johannes read Johann
p. 178, no. 192 BEMBUS
1. 5: delete [Charles Lewis]


p. 183, no. 244.3 ORATIONES
1. 14: for Cicero. read Cicero,
p. 185, no. 252.3 GREGORIUS I
1. 7: for as in Proctor read (as the Liber pastoralis is in Proctor)
p. 188, no. 274 THOMAS
1. 10: delete [Charles Lewis]
p. 190, no. 287 TRISTAN
Add press-mark.: H.23.b.4.
p. 196, no. 318 VALERIUS MAXIMUS
1. 12: for sants read santa
1. 8: for r3 read r3
p. 200, no. 14.5 MARCHESINUS
1. I: for Johannes read Joannes
p. 201, no. 107.5 SAMUEL
1. 5: for covers read corners
p. 201, no. 229.5 HIERONYMUS
1. I: for Eustachio read Eustochio
p. 209, no. 218 SIMONETA
for 718 B 25995 read Hain *14755 719 B 26039
Proctor 5821
p. 212, no. 300 MACER FLORIDUS
for This book . inaccessible read Reichling 6o8 (?)
[Pr. of Le Fardelet
hystorial, types I
and 2]
p. 217, 11. 32-3: the reading should be
Bonifacius VIII. Liber sextus decretalium. [Strasb., about 1470-72], 13
Mainz, 1473, 3
p. 218, 1. 16: for uetus read vetus
p. 219, 1. 35: Eustachio Eustochio
p. 220, 1. I: plurimosum plurimorum
p. 220, 1. 29: 1500 1495
p. 221, 1. 20: Ocknam Ockham
p. 223, 1. 5: [1482?] 1486
p. 227, col. i, after 1. 39 add: Le Fardelet hystorial (Geneva) 300

(.bolue e[cgiacus

6 1~tu

_Vnclita v'ictow ebenbbft monuffta itcare
Or fuperos precibu&s fcpe vocaire toeoo.
z~upiunicunctioacclfo nitnait olympo
2U1(raparanItrnimo virce :ctrcinerot arcue
lbmngiiu ferrnliterepoluo
2(too bonor dfuperis quem premia nottra zuerciltur.
Xa~birur:ethaufto nummne factor be3t.
RIon tioiur noftris manibus mouoztia caftra
nfbandimus: boftilco conterimufqp larce:
Idtioo celicole victricia tela reto,.qucnt
gaue oucibus m0agnia clara rropbca parent.
Xaudibuo ergo rccecr oiuum ccecbrare ronantem
$co coiuer quifq$ SIadios qua wente cruftoo
Axzrat: oroa cs~maculcrp inanue i. b, ~i


rarfupio :Wioluili ftrihe tepit ranrdimoque
utatorts uti tolfueutrit, netti mano allabor
(a pagha lofte.bot i mitte monum aO bur(am
ft ratiliat ofpiti bar Oidla nmnquo ilia tibi
pleatrtt rogatplatet her ianqut hofpe. Tmn
tsator fatieaum ael tibi ~xpa(fto ayt:poRi
tbr rino plaruit tibi.ite ab(. (lutioe O raist

De grntilA quo~am faceta rurpoaro

Jui noter mthi amitiffimus 0 atmoeN
qr-aili trport at marilett?: a0miroante
quoam huiu rei taufam.faoetua qui3am quiD
miraris iuquit quoO rft in promptu.lemihori
quipped hbt in tibo rapitnuo (rpet:in ftreffu a*
twit(tuosm Ouas oo e nim o io i ut plurimi
temporis in purganoo uputrem impartiat

farcta rrpoudio miuhtri
pugillaer uatuum babentis

Mtroa t oftris boutftigrima mulier que
reutt tabellario aumquiD litterarum 60
waritum Dare atllt c aberat taim lougi rei


ofiftio.;e.3 t4 ad Mate. trberimn p etro W93
bedci.791tts-muttertib3 beISdictia dicit facerdois;
rel .driconl ie iened itatll domino. gnuttlo. po-
gul aad ratis;; actionee q2 poft- ois debernus
buMiliarn dco. 30left uis dicb3 d; 3te mflfii. cit.
id fitat d p~opz(J,.Miff3 --~ffjm sta3te, ire Mir
(a Unifu -a verezt Iege vrbf-populue ffzacifitico lice
Ciattli.a rege ciro reuerti Cfc~ueit ad pzopua6+it-
atcrniffa eft-fr3, dmftue.i niaffa pzo defffictis .di;
ZCquiefc~t.-In pace.7optstilr iet 'requtese eteznqa.
3-tem. dicit pfainifts 93eptte. in. die tadE dixt,.
tiba. p~oter q' eccleris c~ftituit fepte bozae dicen
pcras / c~plecorti imatti'o.M tutnal-o
firiii pioter carn 1 docmandi- ~p~opraltezio;Ieol;
do~allfctis- pstrib3 inftitut6 teft. q: ficut dicteco
cdefiathcue.rxii. CJiplis oculoz, tabefcit carn~es
latjdco ad-tcptati~es drabohltrepellEdas Vfldef
pf3a.Xxi.vL tpcr~iffmiti 7Idudite qui babitatia 41
puticre:qz ros- 'z~c,'tE ad corona gIoric obtipen.1
damluxta itlhd mzon rfti -nobis vanfi furgertowit
te .Iu.CF.qt pzo do.co.vii~l~tttbus .prix; dicimu6
q: ~til ofrulatus fait dontino a itida, *Cert qz.
tiicIiuie iudeoz niotifuit aditudicatues 3te5 R
bor. teetia, fpas farctus ad apoftolo. dcfcendit:




Give us but time, place and names, and the genuineness or falsehood
of any story may be easily ascertained.
MALONE, Letter to Percy, 5 June, 1802

T HE BEST METHOD, indeed the only one, of dealing at all adequately with
Boswell's anonymous designations and their identification is by the
prosaic, but safe, way of a table or list of them. I have accordingly compiled
such a list, provided it with an index and added a preliminary survey
of the subject.
Anonymous or general descriptions of persons whose real names were
known, certainly or almost certainly, to Boswell are not so numerous in his
Tour as they are in his Life of Johnson, which is more than four times as
large and of much wider scope: the respective numbers are 64 and 414.1 The
disproportion is due not so much to Boswell's greater freedom or lack of
caution in his earlier book as to the nature of his material: he had less need of
the circumlocutory designations which he used so freely and so dexterously
in the Life of Johnson.2
More than two-thirds of these anonymous personages are now identifiable,
thanks largely to the recovery and publication of Boswell's journals. The veil
is in some cases extremely thin: the identity, for instance, of 'a very penurious
gentleman of our acquaintance' (No. 35, 42) and 'a rapacious Highland
chief' (No. 25, 54) with the travellers' host, Sir Alexander Macdonald, or
of 'a certain eminent political friend of ours' (No. 9), who was a strong party
man, with Edmund Burke, could never have been in doubt. In other cases
the veil was penetrated by the victims themselves or their friends, if not by
the general reader: Baretti recognized himself as 'an Italian of some note in
London' (No. 20), who was ignorant of the authorship of the Lord's Prayer,
and tried, without any success, to show that the description was unfair:
Beattie saw that 'an eminent printer' (No. 16), whose intimacy with War-
burton Johnson belittled, was his friend and Johnson's, William Strahan.
Croker had no difficulty in recognizing Bennet Langton under the disguise
of 'one of our friends' who took ill for a length of time a hasty expression of
Johnson's (No. 15); Langton, who also appears as 'a worthy and tall friend
of ours' (No. 7), showed no resentment-he was to receive harder knocks in
x For an account of the anonymous persons in the Life see my revision of Dr Birkbeck Hill's edition,
1934, I, pp. ix-xi. The number there given is 360; a closer scrutiny shows that this figure is too low.
2 Sir Alexander Macdonald was a difficult problem, but he was exceptional.