Even when a collection aims at universality, there aro of course some points to which more importance will be attached than to others. In a national collection the first object should be the national literature. There is an admirable saying related of the Spanish poet, Moratin the elder, that when he was once asked by a young fellow countryman what authors he should study, he replied, " Spanish and Greek, Spanish and Latin, Spanish and Italian, Spanish and French, Spanish and English." The spirit of the saying should serve as a guide to the librarian who is fortunate enough to have the selection of the purchases for a large national and universal library.
It has been already remarked, that owing to the altered circum stances of recent years some of the opportunities of forming a complete collection of valuable literature which have been allowed to escape, will probably never recur. It is to English literature in particular that this remark applies, and a glance at the history of the principal attempts to embody it in libraries will confirm the view.
At the time that the Bodleian library was founded at Oxford in 1602, there would have been little comparative difficulty in forming a complete collection of the literature of the English language. In the preceding century, during and after the struggles of the Reformation, many English books had been printed abroad, at first by the Reformers, And then after the Reformers' triumph, by the Catholics, but all of them had been intended for the market st home, and circulated here. Almost all the remaining literature of the Language was issued at London, and by the members of the Stationers' Company, and the transfer to the Bodleian of the privilege of the Stationers to receive a copy of each book entered at their hall, seemed to ensure that a com plete collection of English literature should in future exist. The brilliant prospects of the Bodleian in this respect were destroyed b* the remarkable shortsightedness of the founder, Sir Thomas Bodley. " 1 can see no good reason," he wrote to the first librarian, Dr. James, " to alter my opinion for excluding such books as almanacks, plays, and an infinite number that are daily printed of very unworthy matters and handling, such as methinks both the keeper and under-keeper should disdain to seek out to deliver to any man. Haply some plays may be worth the keeping, but hardly one iu forty. For it is not alike in Euglish plays and others of other nations, because they are most esteemed for learning the languages, and many of them compiled by men of great fame for wisdom and learning, which ie seldom or never here among us." Nothing can be added to the force of the simple remark that this passage was written by a contemporary of Shakspere. Of course the opinion of the librarian was obliged to bend to 'the will of the founder, and it would be difficult to estimate the damage that has been done to literature by this un fortunate decision of that illustrious man. For more than two cen
turies afterwards, it appears to have been the practice of the Bodleian librarians to sell or destroy such books as they judged unworthy of a place on their shelves, and this unhappy example was followed in other libraries. In Hyde's catalogue of the Bodleian, published in 1674, the only collection of Shakspere's plays ie the folio of I664; and the only separate play is a Hamlet,' published after the Restoration. Though the drain:dist was known to be the favourite of " Eliza and our James," and also of King Charles, who held court at Oxford, neither the first nor the second folio was deemed worthy of a place on the shelves of the University. But when, more than a century after wards, the tido had so changed that one of the chief glories of the Bodleian was in the Malone library of Shaksperian literature, presented to the University by his brother; and when, In 1841, Marlowe's play of the ' Contention of the houses of York and Lancaster; a single D110 of the mass rejected by Bodley, was bought by the Bodleian library for 1311., a lesson was read which ought to sink deeply into We minds, not only of the Bodleian, but all other librarians.
A complete contrast to Sir Thomas Bodley was presented by one who was probably his contemporary for a part of his life, George Thomason, a bookseller of St. Paure churchyard, who at the commence ment of the great civil strife in 1610, was struck with the happy idea of collecting every publication and pamphlet that appeared on botl sides in that memorable contest ; and with unshaken constancy, an( at immense expense and trouble, carried out his project till th, Restoration in 1660. His enterprise was less prudent than patriotic for his hopes appear to have been to dispose of, not to retain the collet tion, and the Restoration left him but two probable purchasers, in th, Bodleian library and the king ; though it could hardly be expecte( that the university would wish to recall the downfall of the church, o: the monarch the downfall of the monarchy. The university, however only declined on the ground of want of funds ; and the king purchased but would never pay, so that Thomason's representatives who had at first been glad to be quit of the burden, were glad t( receive it back. After the lapse of a century the collection was finall purchased by George III., and presented to the British Museum, when it still remains, a library in itself, often consulted for various purposes but never as yet thoroughly explored. Thomason was fortunate in tin time and country of his enterprise. The contemporary French col lectors of Mazarinades,' as they were called, or the innumerabh pamphlets against Cardinal Mazariu, amassed what was comparativel3 worthless. He was less fortunate in another respect, for while their collections have found a special historiographer to describe them, The mason's still awaits one, and his name has never yet received th( measure of honour which is its due.