THE BODLEIAN LIBRARY
The older portions of the Bodleian Library include
a 15th-century building comprising the Divinity School
and a library over it, with a 17th-century group built
as an extension to the old library after its refoundation
in 1602 by Sir Thomas Bodley. The first addition was
Arts End (1610–12) which now forms one side of the
Schools Quadrangle (1613–18) extending eastward
from the old library. A western extension, known as
Selden End, was completed in 1640, over the new
Congregation House.
The beginning of the Divinity School cannot be
precisely dated, but contributions towards the cost
were being sought as early as 1423 (fn. 1) and the work had
been taken in hand by 1427, (fn. 2) on land obtained from
Balliol College. (fn. 3) It is not known who was then the
master mason, but by 1430 that position was held by
Master Richard Winchcombe, (fn. 4) who had served New
College in a similar capacity at the building of Adderbury Chancel between 1408 and 1418. (fn. 5) For his
services at the Divinity School Winchcombe was to
be paid 4s. a week while at work on the fabric and
40s. a year, together with a gentleman's gown, or
13s. 4d. instead, to mark his supervisory status. It is
to be gathered that he brought other masons with him,
for the University engaged to provide lodging pro se
et suis consortibus; he was moreover to have hay for
one horse and to be paid his reasonable expenses incurred in travelling on business connected with the
building. The next recorded master mason, Thomas
Elkin, appointed in 1439, was probably of less repute.
He is not called master, and his emoluments were lower;
his wage was reduced from 4s: to 3s. 4d. in winter;
his annual payment was only 13s. 4d. and no gown or
lodgings are mentioned in his agreement, though, like
Winchcombe, he was expected to bring masons with
him. His appointment coincided with an intention to
alter the style of the work, which, so far as it had gone,
was considered over-elaborate in taste and too costly
and slow in execution. Elkin was, accordingly, required to proceed, as he had started, in a plainer
fashion. (fn. 6) That, no doubt, is why, on the south front of
the building, housing for images in the window jambs
was omitted and, on the inside of the southern wall,
the beginnings of casements and fillets were left uncompleted. (fn. 7)
How long Elkin continued in office is not known;
probably for about ten years. (fn. 8) The work, in any
event, seems to have been carried on slowly and fitfully.
Towards the middle of the century more rapid progress was perhaps made possible by a legacy of 500
marks from Cardinal Beaufort, made on condition that
the building should be finished in five years, i.e. by
1 March 1453. (fn. 9) Twelve commissioners were appointed
for the purpose, who ordered that two masters of arts,
at a salary of 4 marks a year each, should be appointed
to provide materials, hire workmen, superintend the
work, and keep accounts. The legacy, meanwhile, and
all other sums given or allocated to the work, e.g. the
proceeds of graces, were to be kept in a 'chest of five
keys', from which payments were to be made to the
superintendents only with the consent of the commissioners. (fn. 10) It was suggested that Congregation should
compel all those who had received degrees in Oxford
and were no longer resident there to contribute yearly
to the work, Masters 8d. a year, Bachelors 4d.; but it
would have been impossible to enforce such a decree.
It may be doubted whether, in any real sense, the
building was completed within the stipulated time, but
it was sufficiently advanced by 1466 for arrangements
to be made for furnishing it with desks and benches. (fn. 11)
A payment was made for carving the heads or ends of
these in 1469–70, and also for closing or glazing the
windows, so that the School may have been at least
temporarily roofed by then; but in the same year a
sum of £10 was paid to finish building the walls,
possibly in the upper story. (fn. 12) In 1472–3 a payment of
26s. 8d. was made for work on the roof and renewing
its lead. (fn. 13) Possibly because the roofing had been too
long delayed, the building was in a bad state and the
not inconsiderable sum of £14 13s. 4d. was spent on
repairs in 1474–5. (fn. 14)
In view of these facts the University's statements (fn. 15)
about the building in 1478 must be thought at least a
little exaggerated and, in one particular, inaccurate:
but the state of the fabric was clearly unsatisfactory, and
another attempt, eventually successful, was made to
finish the work that had already been spread over more
than half a century. Thomas Kempe, Bishop of London,
did much to solve the financial difficulty by a gift of a
thousand marks. (fn. 16) Workmen, however, were hard to
find because many had been taken for royal works, but
the king was asked to allow those employed at the
time by Waynflete at Magdalen to be hired by the
University, and Waynflete was requested to lend
the machines used for his works. (fn. 17) By 1481 the
University could tell the Bishop of London that the
workmen were busy as bees, some in carrying stones,
others in dressing them, some in carving images, and
others in setting them in the arches. (fn. 18) By 1483 the
fan vaulting of the roof had been finished (fn. 19) and, while
there is no documentary proof that Waynflete's architect, William Orchard, was master mason at the
Divinity School in this concluding stage, it is not improbable that he was in charge. (fn. 20) The finishing of the
upper story, Duke Humphrey's Library, may have
required more time, but by 1490 the Divinity School
had been completed and the benevolence of donors
could be directed to the fabric of St. Mary's. (fn. 21) For a
century or more the Divinity School remained more or
less as it is represented in Bereblock's sketch of 1566, (fn. 22)
a two-storied rectangular building, with the main
doorway at the western end, centred between two
rectangular towers, both of which were removed by
1640.
With the completion of the upper story, some time
between 1483 and 1490, the building could be used
to house the collection of books to which the benevolence of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, had contributed so remarkably. By the end of the sixteenth
century, however, whether, as Anthony Wood said,
through the misguided zeal of reformers in 1550, or,
as Sir Thomas Bodley more probably believed, through
inadequate endowment and supervision, the Library,
as a public institution, had ceased to function. Its existence could be proved, not by the resort of scholars to it,
but by 'the rome it self remayning and by … statute
records'. (fn. 23) Meanwhile, it is said, the fabric had been
neglected, the furniture partly removed, and the
windows broken. (fn. 24) In a letter of 23 Feb. 1598 Bodley
announced his intention to undertake the cost of restoring the Library to its former use and of furnishing it
with shelving, desks, and seats for the purpose. Before
19 March in the same year he and Sir Henry Savile,
Warden of Merton College, had drawn up notes for a
'platform'; timber, already felled, had been acquired
from Merton College, and sawyers were at work on it. (fn. 25)
Nearly two years later, on 24 Dec. 1599, Bodley
looked forward to having done, within a fortnight,
with 'carpenters, ioiners, caruers, glasiers and all that
idle rabble'. (fn. 26) The next work, of furnishing the
Library with gratings, chains, and other iron ware, was
well advanced by June 1600 (fn. 27) ; but, for reasons not at
all connected with the building, the Library was not
opened until 8 Nov. 1602. (fn. 28)
In less than a decade the restored Library was seen
to be insufficient to house the additions which Bodley's
efforts did so much to procure. In Aug. 1608 the
Divinity School was being measured with a view to
extension, (fn. 29) and in December a rough drawing of the
extension existed. (fn. 30) Bodley wrote, in May 1610, that
he had decided upon extending and had partly agreed
with the master mason, who gave hope of completing
the work by Michaelmas 1611. (fn. 31) The mason was
John Akroyd, (fn. 32) of Halifax, who, in 1597, with his
brother, had undertaken to build Queen Elizabeth
Grammar School at Heath, near that town, and who
also, early in 1609, undertook building work at Merton
College. The finishing of this work, which came to an
end about Michaelmas 1610, was thus in sight when
John Akroyd came to an agreement with Bodley.
Akroyd was not the only northerner to work for him.
John Bentley, mason, of Elland, near Halifax, and
Thomas Holt, carpenter, who had all been employed
at Merton, were to play important parts in building
the Bodleian Library and the Schools. There can be
little doubt about the reason. (fn. 33) In 1604 the building
trades in Oxford had been incorporated and, by 1609,
their association was taking up a more monopolistic
attitude than was consistent with the convenience of the
University and collegiate authorities who, probably
to keep prices down, went outside the city for contractors and workmen. (fn. 34) Sir Henry Savile got his
masons for Merton from his own native region and
probably knew their work there, for his brother had
been treasurer and chairman of the governors of the
Heath Grammar School, which the Akroyds built. (fn. 35)
Bodley had great faith in Savile's judgement, (fn. 36) had
evidently consulted him on the plan for the Library, (fn. 37)
and was therefore likely to employ his workmen, who
had already shown their capacity in Oxford. It is
nevertheless clear that, at times, Bodley was not satisfied
with them.
The work, of which the first stone was laid on
19 July 1610, (fn. 38) was the Arts End, in front of the
Divinity School and at right angles to it, the lower
story being the Proscholium, a porch and passage with
vaulted roof, and the upper part being, as it were, the
cross-bar of the T of which Duke Humphrey's
Library is the stem. Thus the east front of the Divinity
School was hidden, except in the Proscholium, out of
which the east door of the Divinity School opens. Some
difficulty was encountered in finding adequate foundations (fn. 39) and, later, Akroyd, having laid a whole course of
mulleted work, (fn. 40) found the stone poor and the work
unhandsome. In Bodley's opinion the work was in
danger of suffering from the too long absence of
Akroyd, (fn. 41) who probably had other work in hand.
During his absence John Bentley was in charge and,
according to Bodley's information, made 'that which
was naught a great deal worse with his unsightly
daubing'. Early in 1611 it seemed that the building
could not, as Bodley had hoped, be finished by Michaelmas, the weather, according to the masons, having
delayed it, (fn. 42) but by May there was better news of its
progress, and arrangements for plumbing could be
contemplated. (fn. 43) Orders for timber were probably
issued in April 1611, (fn. 44) but twelve months would be
necessary for its proper seasoning. (fn. 45) The timber work
was still in progress in September 1612, when John
Bolton, who carved the screens in the Hall and Chapel
of Wadham College, was in charge. (fn. 46) Painting had
begun in or before May, but Davis the painter did not
arrive to take charge until the autumn. He promised
to finish by Christmas, (fn. 47) and it is possible that the work
had been completed when the Library reopened, after
a fortnight's vacation, on 2 Jan. 1613. (fn. 48)
The whole expense of the Arts End was borne by
Bodley and, without his accounts, the detailed arrangements for carrying on the work cannot be known. He
speaks of Bentley as though he worked for a wage, (fn. 49) but
it is probable that Akroyd, at least, contracted, as he had
at Merton, to do the work for an agreed sum. He was
certainly bound to finish it by a stipulated date (fn. 50) and
was, from time to time, supplied with money, perhaps
in part payment of the agreed price, upon sight of a
letter, certifying the need, from Mr. Brent. (fn. 51) Whether
Akroyd was the architect, in the sense of designer, of
the building is not known: details in ornamentation
were left to the workmen, subject to the approval of the
men whom Bodley trusted to supervise the building. (fn. 52)
Akroyd was perhaps supplied with a general idea of
what Bodley wanted, even with a rough sketch, and
then left to work out the details for himself. (fn. 53) For the
supervision of the work Bodley depended on his
Librarian and on John Hawley, Principal of Gloucester
Hall, William Gent, and Nathaniel Brent, later
Warden of Merton College.
The restoration of Duke Humphrey's Library and
the construction of the Arts End did not exhaust
Bodley's munificence. In Oct. 1611, possibly, he was
asking for information about the land held by the
University in the vicinity of the Divinity School, (fn. 54) and
on 5 Nov. he wrote of the need of 'better built scholes
… then those ruinous little roomes' then used for the
purpose. (fn. 55) Some time before the date of his will,
2 Jan. 1613, a scheme had been formed for the building
of new schools, two stories in height, and Bodley made
testamentary provision for a third, in order to give
more room for additions to the Library. (fn. 56) By that
time preparations were well in hand and the foundation
stone of the Schools Quadrangle was laid on 30 Mar.
1613. The site was acquired from St. Mary's, the
City, Magdalen College, and Oriel College. (fn. 57) Contributions were received from various sources. In addition to donations from individual benefactors there
were contributions required from new entrants upon
their admission to halls and colleges. (fn. 58) Disputation
fees brought in some revenue; (fn. 59) so did fines, (fn. 60) and, as
with most building operations, the sale of surplus
materials yielded something. (fn. 61) Very large contributions were made from Bodley's estate. Up to 6 Nov.
1615 his executors had paid, in connexion with the
third story, nearly £2,500 (fn. 62) and by the Hilary term of
1618 they had advanced a further £1,464 towards
building the Schools. (fn. 63) Bodley's estate also provided
money for the making of the staircases, on the north
and south sides of the East End, by which the Library
is at present entered. Previously, the entrances were at
the western end of Duke Humphrey, and these are
reported by Anthony Wood (History of the University,
&c., ii, 939) to have survived until the Selden End
was added and are represented on Bodley's monument
by Nicholas Stone in Merton College ante-Chapel. (fn. 64)
Too little information has survived for the progress
of the Schools Quadrangle to be traced, or for the
organization of the work to be described, in any great
detail. It is not even certain who the architect was.
Akroyd and Bentley were probably employed, but not
for long, for John Akroyd died in Sept. 1613 (fn. 65) and John
Bentley in Dec. 1615. (fn. 66) The former, according to the
Register of St. Mary's, was 'chief builder of the
Schools' (fn. 67) and the latter, according to his epitaph in
St. Peter's in the East, was novae partis bibliothecae
novarumque scholarum architectus peritissimus. Possibly,
as Mr. Hanson suggests, (fn. 68) Akroyd was in charge from
March to Sept. 1613, John Bentley thence to Dec.
1615, his brother, Michael Bentley, to June 1618, and
Thomas Holt (fn. 69) to June 1619, when, it is believed, the
Picture Gallery, or second story throughout the
Schools, was finished. (fn. 70) Thomas Holt, however, was at
work on the Schools at a later date. (fn. 71)
In the earlier and the later phases of the work the
same system, probably, was employed; that is, particular parts of the work were let out to individuals or
partners by contract or 'bargain'. Thus, before 6 Nov.
1615, thirty-two great windows were paid for at £6
apiece; the cornice 'betwixt ye Antickes' amounted to
600 feet at 1s. a foot; the 'antickes' numbered 215 at
4s. each, and the walling, at 23s. 3d. a perch, cost
£1,243 7s. 6d. (fn. 72) The surviving accounts do not show
with whom these bargains were made, but after July
1621 the contractors are known. Thus there are
entries of £6 'Paid unto Partridge free Mason towards
his bargaine for paving and pitching the Scholes', and
of £16 10s. 'Paid unto John Clarke and James Partridge towards there [sic] bargaine for the freestone
gate towards Brasenose made with them by the
Delegates.' (fn. 73) James Partridge was evidently a contractor on a moderate scale; between July 1621 and
April 1624 he received, apart from sums paid to him
and a partner, £153 for paving the Schools, carving
armorial bearings, and other work on the Schools
gates. (fn. 74)
It is clear that after July 1621 relatively little
remained to be done, and the payments are for paving,
finishing the gates, furnishing the middle room of the
Tower with carpets and cushions, and putting a new
press in the upper chamber. Between May and July
1624 payment was made for pitching Catte Street and
along the north side of the Schools, and there were
many payments on account of the pinnacles. The
making and placing of these adornments of the Library
and Schools were supervised by a Mr. Wilmott, whose
pains the Delegates rewarded with 22s. for gloves.
Like the other stone work, the pinnacles were made by
contracts, in accord with which payments were made
to James Partridge and seven other masons. (fn. 75) Four of
them were allowed 10s. for the use of 'the garden they
hired to work the pinacles in on the North side of the
Schooles, in regard those masons could borrowe noe
place to work theire stonnes in'. (fn. 76) Some of the stone
used was perhaps defective; in seven years' time one
of the pinnacles needed strengthening and another had
fallen and had to be replaced. (fn. 77)
By the summer of 1624, therefore, the Schools
Quadrangle was complete. (fn. 78) There remained only
one part to add, the western end, at right angles to
Duke Humphrey's Library. The foundation stone of
this building, of which the lower story served as
Convocation House, was laid on 13 May 1634, (fn. 79) and
the work was carried out by contract, mainly by
William Mason, who received £350 in 1633–4, £642
in 1634–5, and £408 in 1635–6. (fn. 80) Apart from various
repairs little more was done until 1668–9. Then, in
order to give a more direct egress to processions, the
north side of the Divinity School was altered by the
erection of the 'Gothic' doorway, the design of which
is attributed to Sir Christopher Wren, which still stands
in front of the centre window. About the same time
the vault of the Divinity School, probably because it
was gradually giving under the weight above it, had
to be strengthened with iron cramps. (fn. 81) Similar
trouble in 1701–2 led to further repairs of the vaulting
and, since the walls of the Library were being pressed
outwards, the buttresses of the south wall, with their
bases in Exeter College garden, were extended by 8 ft. (fn. 82)
Gradually the rooms of the Schools Quadrangle have
been turned from their original purpose and used to
house the growing Library, but, in outward appearance, the buildings remain to this day much as they
appear in Loggan's prints of 1675. (fn. 83)