4. Why library history?
A lot of unexplored territory
Opportunity to develop professional skills
Develop a broader view of the profession
Different approach as a practitioner
Funding is available from the Library &
Information History Group (Ollé Awards)
14. Parkhurst’s correspondence
“Our London friends seem to forget their duty, in not
sending over to you books of this kind. Unless the
archbishop of Canterbury had sent me a copy, I should
not have seen it even now.”
Parkhurst to Bullinger, 20 August 1562
15. Parkhurst’s correspondence
“Since it did not come about this way, some other must
be tried. I will persuade one of my learned friends to
undertake this labour.”
Parkhurst to Hans Wolf, 21 January 1573
“I will write to Froschauer respecting the works of
Œcolampadius. It must be your business to translate
into Latin such of them as are written in German.”
Parkhurst to Simmler and Lavater, 29 April1562
16. Parkhurst’s correspondence
“When this came to my ears, I sent him the copy of your
answer which you had presented me with; which when
he had attentively perused, he returned to me with many
thanks, first to you for having published such a work,
and to myself for having lent it to him for some days: for
he has now bade farewell to the opinion of Brentius, and
through your instrumentality, has embraced the truth.”
Parkhurst to Bullinger, 20 August 1562
18. Conclusions
Development of Parkhurst’s library strongly
influenced by friendships he formed
Library reflects career and developments of
religious views
Ideological involvement in early modern print
culture
Examples: the organisation and classification, development of book collections, the use of libraries, catalogues, etc.
What did I get out of it?Spoke at a conference, future publicationDevelop expertise in early printed books, and speak with more confidence about rare books at interviews for special collections positions
Born in Guildford in 1511 or 1512probably educated at the local grammar school to which he would later donate his books, proceeded to Magdalen School in Oxford sometime during his education. B.A. from Merton College, Oxford in 1528, and was a fellow of the college between 1530 and 1537. At Oxford, he met two future leading Reformers who would become close friends: John Jewel, future bishop of Salisbury, whose ‘Apology of the Church of England’ would became the standard defense of the Anglican Church, and he befriended Rudolph Gwalther, who was brought up by Bullinger and who would become one of the most important leaders of the Swiss Reformation, during his visit to Oxford in 1537. started to embrace Protestant views.parson in Little Wittenham in Berkshire between 1537 and 1542, when he moved on to the household of the Protestant patron Catherine Brandon, duchess of Suffolk, to be a domestic chaplain. in 1548presented Parkhurst to the rich rectory of Bishop's Cleeve, Gloucestershire. On the accession of Queen Mary, Parkhurst and his wife fled to Strassburg, whence they then travelled to Zurich, where they had arrived by October 1554. Here, Parkhurst was welcomed by his old friend, Rudolph Gwalther, who would be his host until his return to England in 1559. He also befriended ChristophFroschauer, the most influential printer of the Zurich Reformation, and leading Zurich Reformers such as Heinrich Bullinger, JosiasSimmler and Ludwig Lavater. The Reformed church that he encountered in Zurich would leave a profound impression on Parkhurst, who would later refer to it as a perfect model for England. 1559: return, restored to Bishop's Cleeve a few months after his return, and in 1560 he wasnominated to the see of Norwich, a diocese that was notorious for its religious nonconformity. Historians agree that he was unable to rise to the considerable challenges that this appointment presented. Ignorant of ecclesiastical law, reluctant to exert authority and lax in dealing with recusants and puritans alike, he was frequently reprimanded in writing by the privy council, Matthew Parker, the archbishop of Canterbury, and on one occasion even by Queen Elizabeth herself. will in 1573, and he died on 2 February 1575. In this will, he remembered his native town: I gyve to the town of Guilforde where I was borne a greatebowle of silver and gilte […]. I gyve to the lybrarie of the same towneioyning to the schole the most parte of all my Latten bookes, whereof shalbe made a catalogue as shortelie as I maye.[…]
printed in a total of eight cities, all in Germany and Switzerland, by a total of sixteen printers. little thematic variety, which consists solely of works of theology, and focuses heavily on the writings of continental Reformers, such as Borrhaus, Calvin, Ziegler and Zwingli. Biblical commentaries make up the bulk of the collection. A few authors predominate: Johann Brenz, Heinrich Bullinger, Wolfgang Musculus and Parkhurst’s Swiss host Rudolf Gwalther. The second largest category is made up of works by the Church Fathers, all of which are editions by Erasmus and Protestant Reformers. Other genres, such as Bibles, works of ecclesiastical history and Councils, are negligible, the latter two being represented by just one work each. However, need not mean that Parkhurst’s library did not include other genres, the wording of the will suggesting a selection on his part. For example, it is unlikely that Parkhurst’s library did not contain secular literature. well-read classicist in Ludicra, a collecion of epigrams that was his only publication, in which he refers to Martial, Tibullus, Catullus, Propertius and Plato, as well as to the writings of Sir Thomas More and the poetry of Nicholas Bourbon the Elder (1503-1550). Furthermore, nine identifiable titles that Parkhurst mentions as having read or received in his correspondence that are not in the collection comprise two works of controversy, five theological treatises, one astronomical work and one biblical commentary. Although these numbers are too small to provide conclusive evidence, they indicate that Parkhurst may not have regarded controversies and treatises as suitable for inclusion in his bequest.
83 volumes,79 retain original bindings. With one notable exception, a volume bound in limp green vellum that was bound in Zurich, all books are bound in tooled calf that can be traced to Norwich, Oxford and London. started building the surviving collection when he took up the position of parson again in 1547. His time in Oxford as a scholar as well as his early Protestant sympathies make it likely that he possessed books before that date, but no evidence of this early library has survived. The fact that the starting date of the collection coincides with his new duties suggests that his library served a practical purpose; parish clergy needed works such as biblical commentaries in order to be able to carry out their duties. The titles that were probably part of this early collection include works such as Musculus’s commentary on the Gospel of John and Bullinger’s commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles.Parkhurst’s exile years: most formative for the development of his library. Out of the fifty-eight titles that were included in our analysis, thirty-three are likely to have been acquired over these four years. Include works of Zurich Reformers such as Gwalther, Bullinger, and Vermigli, but theological interests wide-ranging. He acquired many Geneva editions of the Fathers as well as commentaries by Reformed theologians such as Calvin, Gallasius, Ziegler and Borrhaus. Often purchased retrospectively, often over a decade after they had been printed, whereas he acquired the works that were printed by Froschauer in Zurich soon after their publication. This indicates a sustained interest in Reformist theology as well as an engagement with the current theological debates that were taking place in Zurich during Parkhurt’s stays there. Parkhurst’s collecting habits became much more sporadic and narrower in scope when he returned to England. Although the books that he acquired in the early 1560s still present a wider range of authors and imprints, all of the works in the Royal Grammar School that he added to his library between 1566 and 1572 were printed in Zurich by Froschauer and written by men whom he counted amongst his personal friends, such as Gwalther, Bullinger and Vermigli. Indeed, Parkhurst does not appear to have invested heavily in his library during these years. Although at least five titles could be identified as gifts, his correspondence shows that Parkhurst was also still acquiring books himself, regularly writing to Froschauer to order editions he was interested in. In this way, Parkhurst could bypass booksellers altogether, whom he does not seem to have frequented, as he increasingly focused his collection efforts on the printed products of the city that had once provided him with lively debate, strong friendships, and a temporary home. This tendency in his collection habits corresponds to his actions as a bishop; committed to Reform after the model of Zurich, he acted as a patron for several Protestant ministers in his diocese, many of whom would ‘emerge as ardent nonconformists in the later 1570s’. Parkhurst’s physical remoteness from the bustling book trade of London and his inability to deal satisfactorily with the problems that he encountered in his unruly diocese may have further contributed to his detachment from wider theological developments. His unceasing admiration for the Church of Zurich as an ideal model for Reform is apparent from his correspondence. He expresses it most clearly in letter he wrote to Gwalther in 1574: ‘But O! Would, would, O would that at last all Englishmen would seriously put before themselves the church of Zurich as a perfect model for their imitation.’ (Letter book, 6 February 1574, Parkhurst to Gwalther, pp. 81-83)
Parkhurst’s correspondence demonstrates a sustained effort to facilitate the dissemination of Reformist thought through print. particularly interested in the English publication and circulation of works by his correspondents. Thus, in 1573 he informed Gwalther that his commentary on the book of Apostles was now available in England, and in 1574 he let Bullinger know that his Helvetic confessions had been translated and published. In this way, the continental Reformers that he corresponded with must have been able to estimate the extent to which their publications were read outside of their national borders thanks to Parkhurst’s letters. 86.
Parkhurst also considered it his duty to inform them of important English publications. He informed Bullinger of the publication of Foxe’s Acts and Monuments just five weeks after it had been published, and he reproached his acquaintances in London for not informing both himself and Bullinger of the publication of Jewel’s Apology.Parkhurst took this self-imposed duty more seriously, and considered the anonymously published Apology, whose author was at that point unknown even to Parkhurst himself, to be a work that was worthy of international attention. In the same letter, he wrote that he had ordered his servants to find a copy in London so that it could be sent to Froschauer at the approaching Frankfurt fair.
Parkhurstalso assumed a more active role in the communication circuit of print by encouraging the publication of manuscripts he had read and by suggesting new works that would benefit the Reformist cause. advised Bullinger to reduce his ‘discourses on Jeremiah to a single volume’, beseeched John Wolfius to publish his commentaries on Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges.ToLavater, whom he asked to ‘carry on as you have started’ with his biblical commentaries, Parkhurst recommended having his future works printed by Froschauer, a piece of advice which appears to have been taken into account. In this way, Parkhurst’s advice concerned every aspect of the printing process, from the inception of a work to its composition and its publication.Publication does, however, not equal circulation. Parkhurst understood that translation, both from Latin into the vernacular and vice versa, was a key facilitator of this process. As the lingua franca of Europe, Latin could function not only as a common elitist language but also as an intermediary language, through which vernacular works could cross national borders and reach the educated elite, after which they could be further disseminated to readers who lacked literacy in classical languages through translation back into the vernacular. Parkhurst took an active role in encouraging the translation of works that he thought would aid the causes of the reformist community. In a letter to Hans Wolfius, in which he thanked him for translating John Jewel’s Apology into German, Parkhurst declares that he ‘urged him [i.e. Jewel] to make all his books available in Latin’ when the celebrated bishop was still alive. Parkhurst was dedicated to his cause: Since it did not come about this way, some other must be tried. I will persuade one of my learned friends to undertake this labour. Simmler was also one of the men whom he frequently advised: I will write to Froschauer respecting the works of Œcolampadius. It must be your business to translate into Latin such of them as are written in German.
One letter in particular offers a glimpse of the ways in which Parkhurst envisaged that these publications could be used to further the Reformist cause. In a letter to Bullinger, Parkhurst recounts how one of the preachers in his diocese was led astray by the opinion of Brentius, whose defense of the doctrine of ubiquity sparked off a lively debate in print with Bullinger (quote)Parkhurst’s reaction to the preacher’s unorthodox opinions demonstrates the importance that he attached to printed refutations. They were weapons that could be employed in the battle for the minds and souls of the population. Without the publication, translation and dissemination of Reformed refutations, unorthodoxy could grow and fester, remaining unchallenged. If, on the other hand, challenges were refuted and materials that promoted a true understanding of the scriptures proliferated, the Reformed faith, beleaguered by both Roman Catholics and Lutherans, could prevail.
