Table Of Content/I
-^^'r
.--^
-l"
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/alumnicantabrigipt1vol1univiala
ALUMNI CANTABRIGIENSES
Five hundred copies ofthis book have been
printed and the type has been distributed.
This copy is 5\(b.___'xSS_
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
C. F. CLAY, Manager
LONDON FETTER LANE, E.C.4
:
NEW YORK THE MACMILLAN CO.
:
BOMBAY
CALCUTTA MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.
-
MADRAS
TORONTO THE MACMILLAN CO. OF
:
CANADA, Ltd.
TOKYO MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
:
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
1
ALUMNI CANTABRIGIENSES
A BIOGRAPHICAL LIST OF ALL KNOWN STUDENTS, GRADUATES
AND HOLDERS OF OFFICE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE,
FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO
1900
COMPILED BY
JOHN VENN, Sc.D., F.R.S., F.S.A.,
PRESIDENTOFGONVILLBANDCAIUSCOLLEGE
AND
A. VENN, M.A.,
J. .
GILBEYLECTURER INTHEHISTORYAND
ECONOMICS OFAGRICULTURE
PART
I
FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO
175
VOLUME
I
ABBAS—CUTTS
CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1922
ta^m
PREFACE
AWORK—with the above title wi—ll provoke inevitable comparison with its predeces-
. sor the Alumni Oxontenses and enquiry will reasonably be made as to how it
stands, in respect of range and of copiousness of information, when compared with
that well-known work. It is, we hope, no indication ofa grudging spirit, ifwe begin
byinsistingonthefactthatthedifficultieswhichMrJoseph Fosterencountered, great
as they were, are small in comparison with those which confronted us. It is a bare
statement of fact to say that we had to undertake four or five years of work before
reaching his starting point. As is well known, Colonel Lemuel Chester, the American
genealogist, amongst his numerous and extensive collections, made or procured a
complete transcript of the Oxford matriculations. Mr Foster bought this, after Col.
Chester's death, and used it as the basis ofhis work. Now the Oxford matriculation
records, unlike those of Cambridge, give, as a rule, the parentage and birth-place of
the student. This list was, therefore, sufficient for his purpose. He was under no
necessity ofgoingbehind, orbeside,it,byconsultingthe CollegeAdmission Registers.
As regards this part ofhis work he started with his materials at hand, fully prepared.
A
very different experience awaited the Cambridge undertaking. In the first place
the originalrecordsofmatriculationhadtobecarefullyexaminedfromthecommence-
mentin 1544.Theyhadneverbeentranscribed,orevenindexed,untilMrStonebridge,
the chief clerk at the Registry, undertook the work of compiling a preliminary list.
This, of course, had to be verified by comparison with the originals. But more than
this, owing to the scantiness of the Cambridge matriculation records, we found it
occasionally necessary to appeal to the College registers for information. On doing
this, we found, to our surprise, that the cases were very numerous in which a student
duly entered at a College had nevertheless neglected the statutory duty of matricula-
tion. This ofcourseinvolved the obligation ofworkingthrough all the sixteen College
Admission Registers. It was well worth the trouble, not only for the number, but
also forwhat may be called the quality, ofthe names thus added, as the omissions are
largelyfoundinthecaseofyouthsofsocialorpoliticalimportance. Suchmengenerally
enteredasfellow-commoners,and,astheydidnotcontemplate proceedingtoadegree,
they often neglected to matriculate. The monumental instance in point, here, is that
of Oliver Cromwell. He was duly admitted at Sidney, April 23, 1616, and resided
for a year; but, as he neither matriculated nor graduated, the University, as such,
entirely ignores his presence.
The number ofnames thus recovered is large. We reckoned that some 3000 in all
were obtained from College sources, and added to the list of those academically
matriculated,between 1544 and 1659 alone. The results of our labours, so far, were
published, in 1913, in the Matriculations andDegrees, 1544-1659.
Unless a very different state ofthings existed at Oxford, which we have no reason
tosuppose,thenumberofOxoniansgivenbyFostermustbeseriouslydefective,sinceit
rests almost entirely on the matriculation lists. We may therefore fairly claim that,
ifwe have had a heavier task, we have, in return, obtained a muchmorecompletelist
than that of the sister University.
The foregoing remarks apply only to that comparatively later part of University
history which starts with the commencement of the matriculations in 1544. But, as
«3
PREFACE
vi
the title indicates, the scope of our work is considerably more extensive than this.
We have ventured to set before us a much more ambitious aim. This is, in fact, no
less than that of obtaining a compl—ete Roll-call, or list, of all the members of our
University from the earliest date ^whatever that date may be, in the thirteenth
century. No such attempt has ever yet been made, we presume, on behalf of any
ancient University; and no such attempt can, we feel sure, from the nature of the
case,ever approximate to complete success. Foster'sAlumnidoesnotcommenceuntil
1500, and there are not many names in his work between that date and 1570; these
being mostly taken from the Degree lists andWood's Athenae. Our earUest recover-
able students date from 1261.
UNIVERSITY RECORDS
Some account^ must now be given of the various records from which our know-
ledgeoftheUniversitycareerofthestudentsisdrawn,asthesearebutlittleunderstood
outside.
I. TheMatriculation Register. Byastatuteof1544everystudentwasrequired
tomatriculate onhisentrance tothe University. Thiswas onthe occasionofhistaking
the oath of fidelity to his Alma Mater, a ceremony presumably ofvery ancient origin,
if not coeval with the foundation of the University, though no earlier records of the
ceremony are preserved. The only exception was in the case of those under 14, who
weresupposednottocomprehendthenatureoftheirobligation.Theyaredistinguished
by the term imptibes.
As thisisthe onlyofficialrecord ofmembership,it oughtto be complete and trust-
worthy. Unfortunatelyitisneithertheonenortheother. Verymanynamesofstudents
who undoubtedly came into residence are omitted altogether. Indeed one negligent
Registrary has emphasized his term of office (1590-1601) by failing to record any
matriculations at all.
The formalities by which the matriculation was effected differ from those now in
vogue. At the present day the freshmen all attend in person atthe Senate House, and
theresigntheirnames, beforetheVice-Chancellor. In olden times,whenthe students
—
were mostlyboys,theirnames were sent—into theRegistrarybyihtprelectors College
officerswithsomeofthedutiesofatutor andthesewerecopiedintotheofficialbooks
by the Registrary or his clerk. Fortunately most of these prelectors' lists have been
preserved intheir originalform, so that wehave been able to correct, and supplement
deficiencies, by comparison with them. But the consequent labour has been heavy,
as the prelectors scribbled their lists, often almost illegibly, on shabby little scraps of
paper, and the blunders of the copying clerk are numerous, and sometimes almost
incredible in their carelessness. Some examples of the consequent results will be
found further on.
II. Degree Lists. It mi^t naturally- be supposed that as the conferring of
degrees is the principalcorporate act ofa University, the records of these acts would
be fairly complete from the first. Unfortunately this is very far from being the case.
For nearly the first two centuries our history, in this—respect, is a blank. We can
find nothing but a casual reference, here and there in a bishop's—register, on a
monument, in a deed, in the Calendar of Papal Letters, and so forth ^that the man
in question was a graduate.
^ This accountofthe UniversityRecords is largelyre-written from that given inthe Introduction
to the MatriculationsandDegreesy 1544-1619.
