¹ We are grateful to Dr. Anne Hudson for suggesting this topic and for supplying us with references to many of the texts discussed, in addition to helpful suggestions at various stages.

² Curiously, no one, to our knowledge, has commented on these passages and the issue with which they deal.

³ Regarding criticism of the friars, see Lippens, H., ‘Le droit nouveau des mendiants en conflit avec le droit coutumier du clergé seculier’, AFH 47 (1954) pp. 241–92Google Scholar; Hammerich, L., The Beginnings of the Strife Between Richard fitzralph and the Mendicants (Copenhagen 1938)Google Scholar; Erikson, C., ‘The Fourteenth-Century Franciscans and Their Critics’, Franc. Stud. 35 (1975) pp. 107–33, 36 (1976) pp. 108–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gwynn, A., ‘Archbishop FiczRalph and the Friars’, Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 26 (1937) pp. 50–67.Google Scholar

⁴ ‘Frere, what charite is it to gadere up ♭e bokis of Goddis lawe, many mo ♭anne nedi♭ зou, and putte hem in tresorie, and do prisone hem fro seculer preestis and curatis, wher bi ♭ei ben lettid of kunnynge of Goddis lawe to preche ♭e gospel freli?’ Heyworth, P. L., ed., Jack Upland, Friar Daw’s Reply and Upland’s Rejoinder (London 1968) p. 70Google Scholar, lines 373-6. Heyworth (pp. 135-6) considered this comment to be in the nature of a general topos; he was unaware of its relation to Woodford’s Responsiones described below.

⁵ ‘Freris… robben curatis of hor offis and gostly worschip, and letten horn to knowe Gods lawe, by holdynge bokis fro horn, and wipdrawinge of hor vauntages, by whoche ♭ei schulden have bokes and lerne.’ Edited by Arnold, T., Select English Works of Wyclif (Oxford 1869-71)Google Scholar 3.396-7; Arnold’s suggested date (p. 338) should be regarded with caution.

⁶ Matthew, F. D., ed., English Works of Wyclif Hitherto Unprinted, EFTS 74, rev. ed. (London 1902) p. 221/25–32.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid, pp. 128/16-129/2.

⁸ Regarding the Floretum and its Middle English translation see Hudson, A., ‘A Lollard Compilation and the Dissemination of Wycliffite Thought’, JTS ns. 23 (1972) pp. 65–81Google Scholar; idem, , ‘A Lollard Compilation in England and Bohemia’, JTS ns. 25 (1974) pp. 129–40Google Scholar; and Nolcken, C. von, The Middle English Translation of the Rosarium Theologie (Heidelberg 1979) pp. 9–13Google Scholar. For the Latin text, see n. 30 below.

⁹ ‘… per absconsionem librorum scriptorum contra abusiones suas et aliorum ecclesiasticorum, utpote Wilhelmi [Wiclef: MS] de Sancto Amore, cuius libri multis sens et vecribus clauduntur Oxonie et Sarum, necnon per absconsionem librorum Wilhelmi Occam contra papam Romanam, fratris Johannis de Ripsissa, fratris Petri Johannis super Apokalipsim et talium’; unpublished. This transcription, from Brno U. L. MS Mk 28 fol. 174V, was provided by Dr. Anne Hudson. Regarding the Opus arduum, see Hudson, A., ‘A Neglected Wycliffite Text’, JEH 29 (1978) pp. 257–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Regarding FitzRalph see Walsh, K., A Fourteenth-Century Scholar and Primate: Richard FitzRalph in Oxford, Avignon and Armagh (Oxford 1981)Google Scholar and the bibliography cited there, in particular (p. xv) those of Aubrey Gwynn, S.J., in PRIA 44C (1937) pp. 1-57 and in Studies … in the 1930s.

¹¹ Cited from Gwynn, Studies 26 (1937) p. 59; noted by Erikson, 36 (1976) p. 114.

¹² ‘Item aliud damnum tarn graue, quod tendit ad consumptionem seu euacuarionem doctrine in secularibus cuiuslibet facultatis est quod isti ordines mendicantium propter infinita lucra que mendiantibus predictis priuilegiis de sepulturis & confessionibus & aliis que acquirunt tantum multiplican sunt in conuentibus & personis conuentuum quod non reperitur in studiis communibus de facultate artium, sacre theologie, & iuris canonici, aut etiam (ut fertur a pluribus) de facultate medicine aut de facultate iuris ciuitis (nisi raro) aliquis utilis multum liber uenalis: sed omnes emuntur a fratribus: ita ut in singulis conuentibus sit una grandis ac nobilis libraria, & singuli fratres habones statum in studiis, quales sunt modo innumeri, nobilem habeant librariam. Vnde etiam de meis subiectis rectoribus tres aut quattuor misi ad studium: & dictum est michi quod nec bibliam eis urilem, nec libros alios theologie uenales eis congruos ibi poterant reperire, & ad suam patriam sunt reuersi, aut unus eorum saltem rediit iam. Si ista non sit in clero grandis iactura, nulla poterit in ipso esse.’ Cited from Proctor 8811 (Rouen: Guillaume Talleur, n.d.) and Proctor 8611 (Lyon: Johann Trechsel, 1406). There is no earlier version of this passage in FitzRalph’s Propositio unusquisque given on 5 July 1350 (edited by Hammerich, op. cit., p. 53ff.). One might wonder what FitzRalph’s former patron Richard de Bury would have thought of these comments on the friars and their books; see A. Gwynn, ‘Richard FitzRalph at Avignon’, Studies 22 (1933) pp. 590-607.

¹³ Walsh, p. 469.

¹⁴ Edited by Perry, A. J., Dialogus inter militem et ctericum; Richard FitzRalph’s Sermon … by John Trevisa, EETS 167 (London 1925) p. 59/1–16Google Scholar. Regarding Trevisa see Emden (O) pp. 1903-4; D. Fowler, ‘John Trevisa and the English Bible’, Modem Philology 58 (1960) pp. 81-98, and idem, ‘New Light on Trevisa’, Traditio 18 (1962) pp. 289-317.

¹⁵ Concerning Woodford, see Emden (O) pp. 2081-2, and J. I. Catto, ‘William Woodford, O.F.M. (c. 1330-c. 1397)’, D.Phil, diss., Oxford 1969.

¹⁶ Woodford was a bibliographer ar heart who revelled in documentation. In his Defensio mendicitalis, written in 1395-6, he frequently lists authors and documents every fact. The work concludes with a bibliography of forty-three learned doctors, to counter FitzRalph’s contention that there had been more learned doctors before the friars came on the scene. See Doyle, E., ‘A Bibliographical List by William Woodford OFM’, Franc. Stud. 35 (1975) pp. 93–106.Google Scholar

¹⁷ ‘Sextagesima 2^a quesrio. Frater, qualis est [caritas] congregare libros sacre scripture et reponere eos in thesauro et sic eos incarcerare et excludere a sacerdotibus eorum usum et a curatis secularibus et per cautelas impedire eos predicare populo verbum Dei?…

‘Respondeo et dico, primo, quod pars prima huius questionis queri potest ab abathiis et prioratibus monachorum et canonicorum, a communitatibus collegiorum et unitaribus, et a cathedralibus ecclesiis equale sicud [secundum(?): MS] a fratribus. Nam quilibet predictorum habet librarias ad custodiendum libros in eisdem, tam de sacra scriptura quam de scientiis aliis, qui clauduntur, ita ut seculares ab eis excludantur pro maiori parte.

‘Similiter, idem queri potest a magistris in theologia, qui in srudiis et cameris suis muitos libros sacre scripture clausos custodiunt, sermonum eriam libros consimiliter, quos non communicant aliis sacerdotibus secularibus communiter et vix aliquibus sibi bene notis.

‘Item, dico quod congregant sibi libros sacre scripture et reponunt in suis librariis ad custodiendum ut in eis studeant et ad ordinandum et disponendum se ad predicandum populo, et illud est valde caritativum. Sed quod fratres claudent libros tales ad cautelam ut impediam sacerdotes seculares a predicanone verbi Dei est manifeste falsum. Nam illa de causa, sic non faciunt fratres plus quam ecclesie cathedrales vel alii in collegiis, sed propter duas causas faciunt, quarum una est ut libri habeantur in sacra custodia ne furto exponantur, nam in quibusdam locis ubi libri in loco aperto iacebant et sacerdotes seculares accessum liberum ad eos habuerunt, libri frequenter [ferquenten MS] fuerunt furtive sublari, non obstante quod ipsi(?) fuerunt fortiter cathenari, et quaterni aliqui librorum fuerunt abscisi et cathene cum asseribus reliete remanserunt. Quapropter oportuit fratres tenere et servare libros suos melius clausos, vel defecissent eis libri in quibus studere oportebat. Non dico quod sacerdotes seculares furabantur libros sic sublatos, sed sub colore [colori: MS] tali illi vel alii tales libros furari sunt.

‘Alia causa est quod fratres servant libros suos sub custodia clausos ut magis essent in promptu pro fratrum usibus ad custodiendum ut fratres ipsi studeant in eis et illi libri non possunt simul servire fratribus et secularibus. Unde patet responsio … questionis.’ Unpublished; transcribed from the only surviving manuscript, Oxford Bodley 703 (SC 2766) fols. 41-57, questio 62 at 54^V-55 (s. xiv/xv; Oxford Greyfriars). The edition of Woodford’s Responsiones projected by Fr. E. Doyle did not appear. Portions of questio 62 are printed and translated by Catto, J. I., ‘New Light on Thomas Docking OFM’, Medieval and Renaissance Studies 6 (1968) pp. 147–8Google Scholar. Regarding the date of the Responsiones, see Catto, ‘William Woodford’ pp. 31-2. We thank Dr. Margaret Gibson for the suggested emendation of secundum.

¹⁸ Regarding the library of Greyfriars the best survey is still Little, Grey Friars, pp. 55-62. See also Hunt, R. W., ‘The Library of Robert Grosseteste’, in Robert Grosseteste Scholar and Bishop, ed. Callus, D. A. O.P. (Oxford 1955) pp. 121–45Google Scholar; Ker, N. R., Medieval Libraries of Great Britain, ed. 2 rev. (London 1964) pp. 141–2Google Scholar; Humphreys, K. W., The Book Provisions of the Medieval Friars (Amsterdam 1964) pp. 46–66, 99–118Google Scholar; Catto, ‘Thomas Docking’ pp. 135-49; and M. Parkes’s chapter on books and libraries in Oxford, in vol. 2 of The History of the University of Oxford, forthcoming. See also n. 32 below.

¹⁹ Cited by Hunt, ‘Library of Grosseteste’ p. 127.

²⁰ Smalley, B., English Friars and Antiquity in the Early Fourteenth Century (Oxford 1960) pp. 229, 365Google Scholar; idem, ‘John Russel O.F.M.’, RTAM 23 (1956) pp. 309-10.

²¹ The value of books to an Oxford scholar of this time is well illustrated by the fact that Trevisa carried off twenty-four books with him, when he was expelled from Queen’s in 1378. The list of these is printed most recently by Fowler, Modem Philology 58 (1960) p. 94.

²² The institutions in Oxford with libraries of their own would have included University, Balliol, Merton, Exeter, Oriel, Queen’s and New Colleges, Canterbury, Durham, and Gloucester Colleges, the Augusrinians of Osney and St. Frideswide, the Cistercians of Rewley and St. Bernard’s, and the four friaries; regarding these libraries see Ker, N. R., ‘Oxford College Libraries before 1500’, in The Universities in the Late Middle Ages, ed. Ijsewijn, J. and Paquet, J. (Louvain 1978) pp. 298–311Google Scholar, reprinted in Ker’s collected articles; and Pantin, W. A., ‘The Halls and Schools of Medieval Oxford …’ in Studies Presented to Daniel Callus, OHS ns. 16 (Oxford 1964) pp. 31–100Google Scholar. For a list of 123 academic halls in 1313, see History of the University of Oxford vol. 1, ed. J. I. Catto (Oxford 1984) pp. xxxviii-xl.

²³ Regarding Cobham’s foundation see Pearce, E. H., Tilomas de Cobham Bishop of Worcester 1317-1327 (London 1923) pp. 244–8Google Scholar, and Madan, F., ‘Bishop Cobham’s Library’, Bodleian Quarterly Record 6 (1929) pp. 50–1.Google Scholar The statutes are edited by Anstey, H., RS (London 1868)Google Scholar 1.264, and S. Gibson (Oxford 1931) p. 218.

²⁴ Ed. A. Altamura (Naples 1954) pp. 102-3.

²⁵ Edition in progress by R. H. and M. A. Rouse, for the series Medieval Library Catalogues of Great Britain (British Academy); cited from Cambridge U.L. MS Add. 3470.

²⁶ See Southern, R. W., Robert Crosseteste and the Origins of an English TraditionGoogle Scholar, forthcoming OUP.

²⁷ Powicke, F. M., The Medieval Books of Merton College (Oxford 1931) pp. 171–6, nos. 551-3Google Scholar; it should be noted that, contrary to most references to these volumes, including Powicke’s, they were not written by William but for him, in several different hands.

²⁸ See the comments of Hudson, A., English Wycliffite Sermons 1 (Oxford 1983) pp. 189–202.Google Scholar

²⁹ Arnold, English Works, 3.397/4-9.

³⁰ ‘Et considerato … quod … veraces libri multiplican sed religiosis priuatis incarcerati in collegiis conchatenati, aliqui curiositate scolastica nimis diffusi, ita quod pauperes sacerdotes terrena non ambientes, sed celestia desiderantes, turn propter penuriam pecunie libros emendi impediti, turn propter obscuras doctorum sententias farigati, officium predicandi aggredi metuunt, dicti inbecilles antris & claustris non desponsati, cidaribus magistralibus non ornati, sed religione Christi communi contentati, istam facilem compilacionem domesticam pro fidei domesticis ex micis euangelicis doctorumque flosculis velut Ruth colligendo spicas propter bonum publicum Dei gracia conglutinan sunt connisi. Et… tanquam paruuli flores in prato scripture congerminantes suam conpilacionem … pueriliter Floretum decreuerunt nominan.’ Unpublished; cited from the text in Nolcken, C. von, ‘An Edition of Selected Parts of the Middle English Translation of the Rosarium theologie ’, D. Phil. diss. (Oxford 1976) ii 586–7Google Scholar. Dr. von Nolcken intends to edit the prologue in a forthcoming article; we are grateful to her for allowing us to compare her translation with our own.

³¹ Catto, Thomas Docking’pp. 144-5.

³² An edition of the Registrum is currently in progress by R. H. and M. A. Rouse for the series Medieval Library Catalogues of Great Britain (British Academy). The Tabula Septem custodiarum is discussed in the introduction to the edition.

³³ We thank Sir Richard Southern for this suggestion.

³⁴ The disappearance of Wyclif as an issue at Oxford is implied, at least, by K. B. McFarlane, John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity (London 1952).