New Evidence for Ben Jonson’s Epigrammes (ca. 1612) in Bodleian Library Records

Abstract

Previous articleNext article FreeNew Evidence for Ben Jonson’s Epigrammes (ca. 1612) in Bodleian Library RecordsTara L. LyonsTara L. Lyons Search for more articles by this author Full TextPDF Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreOn 15 September 1614, Dr. Thomas James completed one of the many detail-oriented tasks required of the keeper of the Oxford Bodleian Library.1 In a parchment-covered daybook (LR e.9) containing library administrative records, James set down eighty-six titles that he was sending to the Oxford bookbinder, Elias Peerse, “to be bound for ye Librarie.”2 Among this binding consignment was a book that currently stands to transform how we understand the bibliographical presence of playwright and poet, Ben Jonson. The title recorded in the daybook in 1614—two years before the publication of Jonson’s folio Workes (1616)—was “Ben Jhonsons Epigrammes” (see fig. 1). This new archival discovery offers nearly incontrovertible evidence that an early edition of the Epigrammes was in print before 1616. Further analysis of the daybook and Thomas James’s cataloguing practices demonstrates that Jonson’s Epigrammes was returned to the Bodleian in a bound volume and then assigned the shelfmark 8° I 19 Art., where it resided alongside other “minoris formae” or books of smaller form in the galleries of the newly built Arts End.3 While the Epigrammes remained in the library for at least a few years, curatorial handlists and library catalogues show that the book was absent from its shelfmark by 1635.Fig. 1. “Ben Jhonsons Epigrammes” in Daybook (LR e.9, f. 47v). Courtesy of the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointTo the best of our knowledge, no single volume of Jonson’s Epigrammes from the early seventeenth century has survived; it is a “lost book,” not extant in any public or private collection, and a book that scholars suspect never materialized in print.4 Of course, Ben Jonson’s “Epigrams” was published in his 1616 folio Workes, where he referred to the 133 pointed poems, satirical and panegyric in style, as the “ripest of my studies.” Until now, however, there have been only traces of an earlier volume and obscure details about the material form in which it circulated. We know that a single printed edition of the Epigrammes was intended for publication on 15 May 1612 when the London bookseller John Stepneth (Stepney) entered the title “Ben Johnson his Epigrams” in the Stationers’ Register.5 Also in 1612, Sir Arthur Throckmorton, courtier and naval adventurer, noted in his diary the anticipated arrival of “Jhonsons Epigarmmes [sic]” and set aside sixpence for the purchase.6 William Drummond of Hawthornden, Scottish poet and later friend to Jonson, recorded “Ben Ihonsons epigrams” in his lists of “bookes read be [sic] me anno 1612” and “anno 1613.”7 Moreover, a “pamphlet” of Jonson’s epigrams is mocked in the manuscript, The Times’ Whistle (possibly dated 1615), wherein the author “R. C.” ridicules Jonson’s skills as an epigrammatist.8All of these extant records suggest that Jonson’s epigrams were in transmission before the Workes, but textual critics have been hesitant to confirm that the poems made it into print. Because no extant copy survives, scholars have presumed that the London stationer John Stepneth did not finish the project.9 His entry of “Ben Johnson his Epigrams” was the publisher’s last in the Register, and Stepneth’s name is absent from any new title pages after 1612, evidence that Jonson editors Percy and Evelyn Simpson took to mean that the stationer had died soon after.10 Of the planned edition, Ian Donaldson writes, “[I]t is likely the project came to nothing.”11 Other scholars have offered similar conclusions, noting the possibility of a print edition, but then citing Stepneth’s purported death to explain why the book of poems never made it into print.12 Without an extant edition of the Epigrammes or more persuasive evidence of the book’s publication, it has been frequently inferred that readers such as Drummond were referring to manuscript copies of Jonson’s poems.13The problem with most of these theories is that they are based on false assumptions. John Stepneth did not die soon after entering the Epigrammes. He was alive and well in 1612, and he continued working as a stationer for at least another six years. On 28 January 1613, Stepneth turned over his apprentice, John Marriot, to Roger Jackson, and on 6 December 1619, he registered Thomas Tappe as his apprentice, the term beginning on 30 November 1619.14 Despite the accessibility of these records, the enduring error about Stepneth’s early death has since been rehearsed in nearly every assessment of the publication history of Jonson’s epigrams over the last seventy years, ultimately encouraging more creative speculation about manuscript circulation than examination of the available evidence for print publication. This essay corrects received wisdom that the epigrams circulated only in manuscript before 1616 by attending to new evidence for the print edition of “Ben Jhonsons Epigrammes” in 1612.Thomas James’s daybook (1613–20) is the earliest of seven extant daybooks recording the administrative records of the early library. The volume still resides in its seventeenth-century parchment binding, and its 181 leaves contain a wide range of notes and inventories from the early days of the library.15 While lists of books sent for binding make up the majority of the entries, the daybook also contains financial accounts for the library, lists of imperfect books, inventories of donated books, lists of promissory donors, lists of purchased books (both new and second-hand) with prices, lists of duplicate books, lists of books arriving from London, regulations for the library curators, drafts of the statutes of the library, and shelflists for books in the quarto and octavo sections of the library. James started using the daybook in 1613, after the founder and namesake of the library, Sir Thomas Bodley, died in January of that year. James’s hand is most prominent in the diary, although others are visible, including that of John Verneuil, Underkeeper of the Library, who became sub-librarian in 1619 and continued under the new keeper, John Rouse, after James resigned in May 1620. Neatly kept, the daybook captures the everyday efforts of the early Bodleian staff, members of the Oxford book and binding trades, as well as the donors and the library curators who carried on Bodley’s legacy.The Bodleian daybook is also a captivating document for book and library historians because of the consistency of the entries recorded by a professional bibliographer. Before he became Bodley’s librarian, Thomas James had prepared two landmark enumerative bibliographies. His first foray into catalogue creation was a printed register of all known manuscripts in both Cambridge and Oxford libraries, entitled Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrigiensis (1600). This painstaking work earned him accolades from the scholarly community and the attention of Sir Thomas Bodley, who seems to have secured James as keeper for the Oxford library even before the Ecloga hit the press.16 James’s next project was the first printed catalogue for the Bodleian Library, Catalogus librorum bibliothecæ (1605), which was effectively a shelf list of approximately 5,600 volumes followed by an author index.17 This index underwent rigorous development over the years, and by September 1614, when James sent Jonson’s Epigrammes for binding, he was using authors’ surnames to arrange volumes on the shelves of the library. His next printed catalogue, the Catalogus vniversalis librorum (1620), was organized alphabetically by author’s surname.18 Called “a ground-breaking publication” by Richard Ovenden, current Bodley librarian, the 1620 Catalogue was “the first complete printed alphabetical catalogue of any public library.”19 In the seventeenth century, James’s catalogues as well as his methods for classifying titles within the Oxford collection were studied, copied, and adapted across Europe, bringing international attention to the Bodleian and its practical strategies for arranging and indexing the thousands of books upon its shelves.While the daybook was not a “catalogue” prepared to assist readers in identifying books and their locations in the library, James’s records were still executed with precision. One can see this in his tracking of books as they circulated in and out of the library. On 15 September 1614, when James turned over Jonson’s Epigrammes and eighty-five other titles to the Oxford bookbinder, he required the latter to sign the daybook—“Rec by mee Elias Peerse”—confirming that he was now in possession of these aforementioned titles.20 Then again, on 30 September, Elias Peerse signed the daybook, this time acknowledging that he was paid 14 shillings for returning the books in their new bindings.21 James inventoried the titles, marking each one “Recd” (for “received”).22 To the left of the title “Ben Jhonsons Epigrammes” (see fig. 1) is James’s note that the book had been returned, as had all of the other volumes in the list. Because most of the works sent to Peerse were to be bound in composite volumes, a careful account of all titles was necessary to verify that no book had been left behind at the binder’s shop.In this inventory, James also confirmed that the books he designated to be bound together had been compiled as directed. When preparing this list of titles for binding, James arranged them by subject and format, mirroring the organization of the books on the shelves in the library. The Bodleian at this time was divided into four faculties—Theology, Law, Medicine, and Arts—following the four main areas of study at the University of Oxford.23 Within each of these faculties, books were arranged by format: folios were stored with folios; quartos with quartos; and octavos with octavos and other small books. Within each format and faculty, the books were then placed in approximate alphabetical order based on the first initial of the author’s last name. Volumes containing more than one title were placed on the shelves based on the first title’s author.24 The binding consignment for Peerse from September 1614 reveals that James designated that books be bound with others in the same faculty and format. As fig. 1 shows, the first six titles on folio 47v were marked as a group with a brace, followed by the symbol for books in quarto, “4°”: Lithgows travels The schollars Medley Sr Tho Overburies wyfe Englands way to win wealh Cheape and good husbandrie Burning of TeuertonSince all six titles in this set were classified as Arts and would reside in the same section of the library, the sammelband returned in its new binding could be quickly pressmarked and added to the gallery shelves.25 With this set, Peerse followed James’s directions, for these six printed books were present among the other Arts quartos when the Catalogus vniversalis (1620) was printed, with all six titles sharing the same shelfmark—4° L 28 Art.26 The L stood for the surname of the first title’s author, William Lithgow. This pattern recurs in the daybook, as James designated which titles were to be bound together and which were to be bound as single books for exactly fifty-eight out of eighty-six entries in the consignment.27 According to an examination of shelfmarks in the Catalogus vniversalis (1620), at least forty-seven of these fifty-eight titles were still bound as James had ordered in 1620.28James’s forward-looking procedures in the daybook also expose the librarian’s preference for keeping the library’s print and manuscript materials apart.29 In the early years of the Bodleian, James made the argument to the founder to separate printed books and manuscripts, but when Bodley refused, the two media were mixed together on the shelves and sometimes bound together. Only after Bodley’s death in 1613 did James physically separate the manuscripts from the printed books in the library, moving the chained manuscripts to the West End gallery where they were kept under lock and key, much to the annoyance of Brian Twyne, who made a formal complaint against James in November of 1613 and another in early 1614 for various infractions, including disruption of his access to manuscript materials for research.30 James eventually conceded, and the manuscripts were returned to their original locations on the shelves; however, for cataloguing purposes, the keeper continued to ensure that manuscripts were easily differentiated from print. Even as early as 1605, the Bodleian catalogue communicated to readers that the common abbreviation “MS.” signified “Librum Manuscriptum”; each manuscript was thus identified with the simple two-letter abbreviation throughout the catalogue. The 1620 catalogue continued to identify manuscripts in the library’s collections with this same abbreviation.Even in the daybook, James used the abbreviation for manuscripts, and binding records confirm that he did not have manuscript and printed books bound together.31 This detail is especially important for extrapolating from the daybook that Jonson’s book of Epigrammes was in print. Throughout the daybook, James marked manuscript titles with the “MS” abbreviation. In one example from 1616, he recorded the gift of eleven manuscripts from the three sons of Richard Colf, D.D., and after the short title of each work, James wrote “MS” followed by the format; hence, the first entry in the list appears as “Beda Super Actus Apostoloru[m]. MS. in f°.”32 In 1618, a group of manuscripts was donated by Thomas Cecil, Earl of Exeter, and again, each title was followed by the manuscript abbreviation “MS” and then the format.33 Notably, in the consignment to Peerse, neither Jonson’s Epigrammes nor any of the books sent for binding that day were identified as manuscripts.In fact, all eighty-six titles can identified as printed books (see appendix). The vast majority of titles in the binding consignment—eighty out of eighty-six—had been printed between 1612 and 1614, and seventy-nine out of eighty-six were printed in England.34 This preponderance of recently published English books arriving at the Bodleian may be surprising to modern scholars who are familiar with Bodley’s prohibition of English vernacular pamphlets from his library. In February 1612, Bodley wrote to James directing him to reject all “idle bookes” and “riffe raffe,” such as “almanackes, plaies, & an infinit number, that are daily printed, of very unworthy maters & handling.”35 By September 1614, however, Bodley was dead and James was crafting his own plans for accessions. Hence, Jonson’s book of Epigrammes was sent for binding alongside English printed almanacs, satiric verse, plays, and many different sorts of texts that Bodley surely would have deemed “baggage books.”36 This influx of English print was due to an agreement between the Bodleian and the London Stationers’ Company that guaranteed the library one perfect copy of each newly printed book; in exchange, stationers could borrow the books they deposited or examine and copy those books given by others. On 27 February 1611, the deed went into effect.37 Although the Stationers often flouted the deposit requirement, the daybook contains entries of the titles arriving from the beadle of the Stationers’ Company. Fifty-seven of the seventy-nine English printed titles that James ordered to be bound by Peerse in September 1614 had been sent by the Stationers and were received by the library on July 28, just a little more than three months before.38 Jonson’s Epigrammes was not recorded as part of this July deposit from the Stationers’ Company, and none of the library administrative records, to my knowledge, document how and when Jonson’s book arrived, although it was a probably a deposit book like the many other printed “London books” in the consignment.Although James did not explicitly identify the format of Jonson’s Epigrammes in the binding order, we can extrapolate from available evidence that it was a small volume, likely an octavo or duodecimo. In the consignment from 15 September 1614, all titles were printed in quarto or smaller formats (see appendix). For many of these titles, James himself identified the format in the right margin of the daybook, denoting with braces or vertical lines which books were to be bound together. This notation system, however, lapses on f. 47v after the first six quartos (see fig. 1). Beginning with “Corona virtutem” and down to the end of page, James records nineteen titles that are not labeled by format or sorted into discrete bracketed groups, Jonson’s Epigrammes being part of this set.39 James’s other records in the daybook tell us what this absence means. According to his documentation patterns, these unmarked books were all of the same or similar formats. For example, on f. 48r, nine titles are grouped together, but not labeled by format; closer inspection of these titles reveals that all nine were quartos.40 This was also the case with the set of titles containing Jonson’s Epigrammes, as all were small-format books, with thirteen in octavo, three in duodecimo, one in sextodecimo, and two remaining titles (“Epigrammes” and “Almanacks 5 sorts”) likely in one of those three formats.41Upon returning to the Bodleian from the binders, these small books were assigned an 8° shelfmark and placed in the “Octavo” sections of their corresponding faculty. This shelving process is recorded within the pages of the daybook, as James constructed a handwritten catalogue or handlist to chart the location of books across the different faculties. The daybook’s handlist is first organized by faculty in this order: Medicine (111r–118v); Arts (119r–139r); Law (139v–147r); and Theology (147v–177v). Within each faculty, books are ordered by author’s last name and format, so that the Arts handlist commences with books by authors whose surnames begin with the letter A, beginning with quartos (numbered 1–38) and then octavos (numbered 1–56).42 The next page of the daybook handlist starts with the B authors in quarto and then octavo. This handlist was a work in progress; there are several gaps throughout the list, and names have been crossed out and replaced with others. Nevertheless, in the majority of cases from the 1614 binding consignment, the shelfmarks that are recorded in the daybook handlist match those in the 1620 printed Bodleian catalogue. One example is Henry Parrot’s Laquei ridiculosi (1613), a sextodecimo book of epigrams in the consignment sent to Peerse in 1614, which is recorded in the daybook handlist in the 8° Arts section with books whose authors’ surnames begin with P. As the thirty-first volume in the list, the book denoted as “Parrot” in the daybook appears at the shelfmark 8° P 31 Art.43 And it was still there in 1620, when this same shelfmark was printed next to Parrot’s title in the Catalogus vniversalis (1620).44As for Jonson’s Epigrammes, the book was recorded in the daybook’s handlist in the Arts section at 8° I 19 Art., joining other minori formae in the new Arts End gallery.45 In the handlist, the name “Jonson” marks the spot (see fig. 2). While “Jonson” here could refer to another early seventeenth-century title by an author with the same surname and in a small format, the possibilities are significantly limited when we consult the 1620 catalogue.46 Later curatorial handlists also consistently identify a book by “Jonson” at this same shelfmark. These other manuscript handlists were created for the curators of the Bodleian Library after an ordinance passed on 10 November 1614 to establish procedures for routine checks to detect missing or misplaced books.47 The eight curators were directed to use these handlists to record any changes in library holdings. When the handlists were created in late 1614 or early 1615, the Epigrammes by “Jonson” resided at the shelfmark 8° I 19 Art.48Fig. 2. Daybook Handlist Lib. Artium 8° I 19 (LR e. 9, f. 129v). Courtesy of the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointCuratorial handlists also show that the Epigrammes was still at this shelfmark in July of 1615. These handlists were living documents, and as books were added to the shelves in the library, new entries were added to the catalogues, often at different times and by different hands; these changes designate additions or corrections that were made to the lists after their initial creation.49 For example, when preparing the daybook handlist (see fig. 2), James recorded twenty-two volumes at “8° I Arts.”50 In the Professor of Theology’s curatorial handlist, there are twenty-four titles at “8° I Arts,” indicating that two more books had been added at a later date and Jonson’s book still remained on the shelf.51 The approximate date that these two books were added can be deduced from a binding consignment, which recorded each one being sent to Peerse (or his father, Francis) on 28 July 1615.52 The book at 8° I 23 Art., marked “Indes,” was the octavo, Histoire generalle des Indes (Paris, 1569), and the book at 8° I 24 Art., marked “Justinus,” was the octavo, Giustino historiographo clarissimo (Venice, 1535). Both titles also appear in the 1620 catalogue with these same shelfmarks, as they still do today.53 What we can deduce from these handlists then is that Jonson’s Epigrammes was still in the 8° I Art. section of the library in the summer of 1615 when these two additional books were assigned shelfmarks and added to the library’s collections.Curatorial handlists can also help us approximate when Jonson’s Epigrammes were removed from the shelves. In 1620, the single book of Jonson’s Epigrammes was not identified as part of the Bodleian holdings in James’s printed catalogue.54 If James simply overlooked the Epigrammes when preparing the catalogue for print, the book could have remained at 8° I 19 Art. for another decade or so, but it was gone from this shelfmark by the time the 1635 catalogue was published. We can trace the book’s disappearance in the handlist for the Professor of Hebrew (fig. 3) wherein the name “Jonson” at 8° I 19 Art. has been crossed out along with five other books.55 Notably, the four other titles—indicated by “Jacobus,” “Intronato,” “Ingegneri,” and “Indice”—were at their relegated shelfmarks in 1620, according to the printed catalogue.56 Therefore, it must have been after 1620 that these other volumes were removed and after 1631 that their shelfmarks 8° I 19–22 Art. were assigned to a four-volume sextodecimo set entitled De Rebus Publicis Hanseaticis (1631), or as the handlist records, “Angelius Werdnhag.”57 Indeed, a later handlist shows that Jonson’s shelfmark was completely supplanted by the Werdenhagen volumes; at 8° I 19 Art., the name “Angelius” is recorded with no reference to “Jonson.”58 The 1635 printed Bodleian catalogue confirms that the four Werdenhagen volumes resided at 8° I 19–22 Art., with no traces of Jonson’s Epigrammes at any other shelfmark in the library.59Fig. 3. Curatorial Handlist for the Professor of Hebrew (LR 286, f. 193r). Courtesy of the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointSo what happened to the Bodleian’s copy of Jonson’s Epigrammes? Bodleian Library records do not say, but we can conjecture that the book was pilfered, discarded, or sold off as a duplicate sometime after Jonson’s Workes arrived. It was the Bodleian’s policy to replace older editions with newly printed ones, especially if there was a significant addition or improvement to a text.60 The daybook records entire lists of these “Double Books in ye Librarie to be exchang[e]d for others or sold.”61 If the Epigrammes went missing, little effort may have been exerted to acquire another copy once the folio was on the shelves. On 12 June 1617, Thomas James was sending Jonson’s Workes off to the Oxford binder John Allam, and in 1620, it was still in the library, recorded in the Catalogus vniversalis under “Ben Jhonson / Works. Lond. 1616. A 2.15.”62Investigating the institutional records of the early Bodleian Library reveals that book loss has always been a challenge for those invested in knowledge preservation. The library’s records were designed to ensure that texts—and books as vehicles of those texts—did not disappear into oblivion. Once a book like Jonson’s Epigrammes entered the library, it was monitored as it moved from accessions to the binder, from the binder back to the keeper, and from keeper onto the shelves where it was surveyed regularly by curators documenting its presence or its absence. The purpose of the daybooks and handlists was not only to prevent loss but also to know that loss had occurred when it did; ideally then, action could be taken to procure another copy of the text for the library. Although the Bodleian’s copy of Jonson’s Epigrammes did not survive, it seems fitting that James’s daybook continues to do the work of revealing what once existed, so we can better understand what has been lost. The evidence of the Epigrammes serves as a reminder to textual and literary scholars alike that our knowledge of early modern books and their authors has been distorted by what has survived; fuller access to the past requires more nuanced research on textual loss as well as some healthy skepticism of scholarship that assumes a bibliographical record that is complete.63Appendix. Books geuen to goodma[n] Peerse to be bound for ye Librarie/Transcription from DaybookAuthorFormatDateSTC no. or Place of Printing[F. 46r]White of ye way to the Church defendaJohn White4°161425390Mysterie of self deceiuingDaniel Dyke4°16147398A payre of sermonsDr. Robert Wilkinson4°161425661Vitis PalatinaJohn King4°161414989.5 or 14990Jo. Boys on ye festivall Ep[ist]lesJohn Boys4°16143462.7[F. 46v]Will. Walker sermo[n]William Walker4°161424964Bawghs sum[m]ons to iudgme[nt]Thomas Baughe4°16141594Admonitio[n] to the Palsegraves ChurchesJohn Rolte4°161419129Alex. Roberts Sacred septenarieAlexander Roberts4°161421074A brief discourse of ye ScripturesThomas Hayne4°161412975Father Cottons awnsweare by Pet. MoulinPierre Du Moulin4°1614558B[isho]p of Gallowaies DikaiologieWilliam Cowper4°16141915Brerewood de Ponderibu[s] al mensurisEdward Brerewood4°16143612Brerewoods EnquirieEdward Brerewood4°16143618Adam Reuters libertatis Anglie def.Adam Reuter4°161320915Historia Episcop. Traiect. auctore Suffrido e Wilhel. Hed.Wilhelmus Heda; Suffridus Petrus4°1612FranequeræTho. Adams ye divels BanketThomas Adams4°1614110Jacksons 3 pt on ye CreedThomas Jackson4°161414315F. Fogerolaeq Methodus in AphorismusFrançois de Fougerolles4°1612ParisWiddringtoni disp Theolog 1Thomas Preston8°161325602Williamsons Sword of ye spiritThomas Williamson8°161325740A Heavenly PortionAlexander Lumesden8°161416924Gibson of ye Blessing of a good k.Thomas Gibson8°161411841Will. Est two sermons of ye Christians ComfortWilliam Est8°161410539Bedwells Calendariu[m]William Bedwell8°1614413The Land of Mourning by Abraha[m] Gybs[o]nAbraham Gibson8°161311830Penitet sinners entertaineme[n]tJohn Hill8°161413471Speculu[m] Christianu[m]Girolamo Zanchi8°161418422Rich. Bratwait Prodigals tearesRichard Brathwait8°16143579[Ye] Grounds of DiuinitieElnathan Parr8°161419314[F. 47r]The strong helper by Jo. HaywardJohn Hayward8°161412986Difference of hearers by Will. Harriso[n]William Harrison8°161412879Drusij quoes hebrJoannes Drusius8°1599[Franeker sold at Amsterdam]Idea Ph[ilosphe]a Rod. GoclenijRodolphus Goclenius8°1612Marpurgi Catt.The Churchs Lament for ye loss of ye Godly by StockRichard Stock8°161423273Moses sight of CanaanStephen Jerome8°161414512The Godly mercha[nt] by Will Pembarto[n]William Pemberton8°161315969Censura Scriptoru[m] Robo Coco auctoru[m]Robert Cooke4°16145469Halls Contemplatio[n]s vol. 2Joseph Hall8°161412652Gallard SermonsThomas Newhouse8°161418493Sorrowes lenitiueAbraham Jackson8°161414296Alvarus Gomesuis stitched vpAlvarus Gometius4°1551n/aGeo Sabinus Coronatio Car[oli]. 5tiGeorge Sabinus8°1613n/aJustificatio[n] of Andromeda liberataGeorge Chapman4°16144977Ghost of Rich ye 3Christopher Brooke4°16143830Labyrinth of mans lyfeJohn Norden4°161418611Bedwell de nu[m]erisWilliam Bedwell4°161421825Sr Tho. Smithes Com[m]onwealhSir Thomas Smith4°161222863Barn. Riches ExcuseBarnabe Rich4°161221003New life of VirginiaRobert Johnson4°161214700Justa Oxoniensiu[m]University of Oxford4°161219021.5Remaines of a greater workeWilliam Camden4°16054521 or 4522[F. 47v]Lithgows travelsWilliam Lithgow4°161415710The schollars MedleyRichard Braithwait4°16143583Sr Tho Overburies wyfeSir Thomas Overbury4°161418907 or 18904Englands way to win wealhTobias Gentleman4°161411745Cheape and good husbandrieGervase Markham4°161417336Burning of TeuertonAnonymous4°161210025Corona virtute[m]Walter Quinn12°161320563Aug Taylour EncomiastiqueAugustine Taylor8°161423721Hippolyti Parmae praxisHippolitus Parma8°1608n/aDoc Raynolds letterJohn Rainolds12°161320611Bezeaes che[i]f pointsThéodore de Bèze12°16132002Laquei ridiculosiHenry Parrot16°161319332.5 or 19332Almanacks 5 sortsn/an/an/an/aZouches doveRichard Zouch8°161326130Secrets of AnglingJohn Dennys8°[1613]6611Declaratio[n] of NantesFrance Sovereign8°161316831 or 16831.5Poets WilloweRichard Braithwait8°16143578Ben Jhonsons Epigram[m]esBen Jonsonn/an/an/aPrompters PacquetAnonymous8°161220432PersiusPersius8°161419777Private schoole of defenseGeorge Hale8°161412627Motives to knowledgeAnonymous8°161318213The philosophers banquetTheobaldus Anguilbertus? Michael Scot?8°161422062The shephards pipeWilliam Browne8°16143917The scourge of venusOvid8°1614969[F. 48r]A Christian turnd TurkeRobert Daborne4°16126184Triu[m]phes of TruthThomas Middleton4°161317904Campions descriptio[n] of a MaskeThomas Campion4°16144539A stra[n]g foot p[o]stAnthony Nixon4°161318591Wits