User login
Feed aggregator
Printer-friendly versionSeptember 5 (August 26, o.s.)
Jamaica: The Council meets and orders that forty men be pressed to man HMS Guernsey. A letter is drafted to the Lords of Trade and Plantations.
Massachusetts: George Herrick, the deputy sheriff of Essex County, apprehends the three Rowley men (John Jackson Sr., John Jackson Jr., and John Howard) accused of witchcraft by the four daughters of Mary Bridges in their confessions the previous day and brings them to Salem for questioning.
The loss of a reading room.
I’m a few weeks behind in my Google Reader, so I only just discovered that the Eighteenth-Century Reading Room has closed down, in both real and cyberspace. As a reader of 18th-century miscellany whose institution does not provide access to ECCO, I’m feeling the loss of this resource already. Does anyone know what happened?
Elsewhere on the Web
Monday 4 September 1665
Writing letters all the morning, among others to my Lady Carteret, the first I have wrote to her, telling her the state of the city as to health and other sorrowfull stories, and thence after dinner to Greenwich, to Sir J. Minnes, where I found my Lord Bruncker, and having staid our hour for the justices by agreement, the time being past we to walk in the Park with Mr. Hammond [L&M say "Mrs." P.G.] and Turner, and there eat some fruit out of the King's garden and walked in the Parke, and so back to Sir J. Minnes, and thence walked home, my Lord Bruncker giving me a very neat cane to walk with; but it troubled me to pass by Coome farme where about twenty-one people have died of the plague, and three or four days since I saw a dead corps in a coffin lie in the Close unburied, and a watch is constantly kept there night and day to keep the people in, the plague making us cruel, as doggs, one to another.
‘At hand quoth pickpurse’
Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}
Michael Drayton finished off the 1605 version of his sonnet sequence Idea with a set of dedicatory sonnets, ‘Certaine other Sonnets to great and worthy Personages.’ There’s one ‘To the high and mighty Prince, James king of Scots’, then one to Donne’s patroness, ‘To Lucy Countess of Bedford’; followed by ‘To the Lady Anne Harington.’, then ‘To the Lady L. S.’ The final one is the only one that has any circulation at all:
To Sir Anthony Cooke. Sonnet 64.
Vouchsafe to grace these rude unpolished rhymes,
Which but for you had slept in sable night,
And come abroad now, in these glorious times,
Can hardly brook the pureness of the light.
But sith you see their destiny is such,
That in the world their fortune they must try,
Perhaps they better shall abide the touch,
Wearing your name, their gracious livery.
Yet these mine own, I wrong not other men,
Nor traffic further then this happy clime,
Nor filch from Portes, not from Petrarch’s pen,
A fault too common in this latter time:
Divine Sir Philip, I avouch thy writ,
I am no pick-purse of another’s wit.
One of Drayton’s regular topics was his own ‘fantastic’ inventiveness, which he affects to defend so as to go on about it in a self-advertising way. Here, though, he rather oddly stakes his claim for originality (unlike others, he neither steals from Desportes nor Petrarch, he brags) by using and roundly endorsing a line from Sir Philip Sidney (‘Astrophel and Stella’, no 74). He doesn’t lift phrases from other writers!
At least one early modern writer apparently found this a strange way to profess how original you are:
Henry Parrot, Epigram 168, ‘Trahit sua quemque voluptas’ in Laquei ridiculosi: or Springes for Woodcocks (1613):
Wat wills you know how much he scorneth it,
To be a pick-purse of another’s wit:
But in a pocket, please you understand,
He hath a reaching, deep, and diving hand.
It appears to be a ‘pop’ (as we say these days) at Drayton. But the other possible reading of the epigram is that Parrot’s jest was merely that while ‘Wat’ (in this reading, just an invented epigrammatic malefactor) scorns to steal wit, ‘Wat’ is nevertheless in the literal sense an active pickpocket. This would make Parrot a secondary re-user of Sidney’s phrase about not lifting phrases.
There’s probably a Note and Query about this lofty matter, but I profess not to have read one, honestly.
Image, a detail from Adriaen van Utrecht, ‘Fishmonger's Stall’
~~
September 4 (August 25, o.s.)
Connecticut: Katharine Branch appears in the morning before Jonathan Bell, commissioner in Stamford, and reports that Goody Miller, one of the women against whom she has been making witchcraft accusations for some time, recently came to her spectrally while she was sleeping, grabbed her by the head, pulling it down behind her back, and told her that Elizabeth Clawson, another accused witch, would come by soon. She then woke up. Kate’s master, Sergeant Daniel Westcott, tells Bell that he was in bed asleep at the time but was awakened by Kate screaming violently. He went to her and saw her on her bed with her head bent behind her back and her body arched up about a foot over the bed. She didn’t seem to be breathing. She lay there for quite a while, then fell flat onto the bed and began groaning and breathing harshly for several hours, seeming to be in a fit.
Jamaica: The Council meets and orders that the captain of the sloop Pembroke be paid and sent in pursuit of Nathaniel Grubing, the privateer who plundered Spanish River in early March.
Massachusetts: The four daughters of the confessed witch Mary Bridges of Andover who were accused of witchcraft by Martha Sprague and Rose Foster on August 20 are brought to Salem to be questioned by the Salem magistrates. Although all four initially proclaim innocence, they all eventually confess. The most elaborate confessions come from the two youngest girls, seventeen-year-old Sarah Bridges and thirteen-year-old Mary Bridges Jr., who spin elaborate tales of witch meetings in response to the judges’ insistent questions. Between them the four confirm the guilt of several people already in jail and add accusations of three new people, all from the neighboring town of Rowley: a father and son both named John Jackson and one John Howard.
Meanwhile, Martha Sprague’s stepfather Moses Tyler files more charges with the Andover authorities against other people his stepdaughter and her cousin Rose have accused of afflicting them. He is joined by Samuel Martin, whose nineteen-year-old daughter Abigail has also begun to have fits. The accused are William Barker, his niece Mary Barker, and Mary Marston, all of Andover.
Call for Submissions: Philosophers' Carnival LXXVII
Sunday 3 September 1665
(Lord's day). Up; and put on my coloured silk suit very fine, and my new periwigg, bought a good while since, but durst not wear, because the plague was in Westminster when I bought it; and it is a wonder what will be the fashion after the plague is done, as to periwiggs, for nobody will dare to buy any haire, for fear of the infection, that it had been cut off of the heads of people dead of the plague. Before church time comes Mr. Hill (Mr. Andrews failing because he was to receive the Sacrament), and to church, where a sorry dull parson, and so home and most excellent company with Mr. Hill and discourse of musique. I took my Lady Pen home, and her daughter Pegg, and merry we were; and after dinner I made my wife show them her pictures, which did mad Pegg Pen, who learns of the same man and cannot do so well. After dinner left them and I by water to Greenwich, where much ado to be suffered to come into the towne because of the sicknesse, for fear I should come from London, till I told them who I was. So up to the church, where at the door I find Captain Cocke in my Lord Brunker's coach, and he come out and walked with me in the church-yarde till the church was done, talking of the ill government of our Kingdom, nobody setting to heart the business of the Kingdom, but every body minding their particular profit or pleasures, the King himself minding nothing but his ease, and so we let things go to wracke. This arose upon considering what we shall do for money when the fleete comes in, and more if the fleete should not meet with the Dutch, which will put a disgrace upon the King's actions, so as the Parliament and Kingdom will have the less mind to give more money, besides so bad an account of the last money, we fear, will be given, not half of it being spent, as it ought to be, upon the Navy. Besides, it is said that at this day our Lord Treasurer cannot tell what the profit of Chimney money is, what it comes to per annum, nor looks whether that or any other part of the revenue be duly gathered as it ought; the very money that should pay the City the 200,000l. they lent the King, being all gathered and in the hands of the Receiver and hath been long and yet not brought up to pay the City, whereas we are coming to borrow 4 or 500,000l. more of the City, which will never be lent as is to be feared. Church being done, my Lord Bruncker, Sir J. Minnes, and I up to the Vestry at the desire of the justices of the Peace, Sir Theo. Biddulph and Sir W. Boreman and Alderman Hooker, in order to the doing something for the keeping of the plague from growing; but Lord! to consider the madness of the people of the town, who will (because they are forbid) come in crowds along with the dead corps to see them buried; but we agreed on some orders for the prevention thereof. Among other stories, one was very passionate, methought, of a complaint brought against a man in the towne for taking a child from London from an infected house. Alderman Hooker told us it was the child of a very able citizen in Gracious Street, a saddler, who had buried all the rest of his children of the plague, and himself and wife now being shut up and in despair of escaping, did desire only to save the life of this little child; and so prevailed to have it received stark- naked into the arms of a friend, who brought it (having put it into new fresh clothes) to Greenwich; where upon hearing the story, we did agree it should be permitted to be received and kept in the towne. Thence with my Lord Bruncker to Captain Cocke's, where we mighty merry and supped, and very late I by water to Woolwich, in great apprehensions of an ague. Here was my Lord Bruncker's lady of pleasure, who, I perceive, goes every where with him; and he, I find, is obliged to carry her, and make all the courtship to her that can be.
Conversations likely to be misunderstood when heard out of context
Dad the Emeritus Historian of Graeco-Roman Egypt: There are too many questions concentrated on the first four pages of the chapter.
LP: But, Dad, you killed so many people! All the facts are frontloaded in the beginning of the chapter, and it's difficult to write T-F questions about the rest of it...
Dad: I killed fewer people in this version.
(In case you're wondering, we're discussing chapter twelve of the upcoming second edition of this.)
Signs that you seem not to understand "taking a sabbatical"
1. Have gone into the department every day since the semester began.
2. Still dealing with leftover graduate administrivia.
3. Feeling vague guilt about not attending a department meeting.
4. Experiencing fleeting moments of worry about not being in class.
5. Sitting in your department office with the door open.
September 3 (August 24, o.s.)
Connecticut: Several people come before the court in Stamford to testify regarding the witchcraft allegations of Katharine Branch. Commissioner Jonathan Bell testifies that Daniel Westcott, Kate’s master, came to his house in May and told him that a strange man had come to her and told her that her brother in St. Kitts in the West Indies was dead. Kate was very saddened and distressed by this and began to cry, and the man told her that she wouldn’t have any more fits for three weeks. Bell’s wife Susannah, who was there, confirms the story, as does Westcott. This story accords with that given by John Pettit on August 4.
Although Bell’s testimony tends to support the authenticity of Kate’s afflictions, other witnesses cast doubt on it. Samuel Blatchly testifies that he heard Daniel Westcott’s wife Abigail talking at the home of Nathaniel and Abigail Cross about what Stamford minister Joseph Bishop had said to a Mr. Burr about her (Abigail Westcott) talking about Mercy Disborough, one of the women accused of bewitching Kate Branch. Blatchly says that at one point Abigail Cross said that she believed Westcott had talked about Disborough to Bishop while Kate was around, to which Westcott replied that she had indeed, but that Kate was in one of her fits at the time (and thus insensible to what was happening around her). Westcott, who is very familiar with Kate’s fits, could tell this by looking at Kate’s eyes, but Bishop could not, and to him she therefore looked like she was totally in her senses. Indeed, Westcott said that she had been in her senses just before, but had fallen into a subtle fit by the time the subject of Disborough came up. This testimony by Blatchly is fairly damaging to the accusations against Disborough, since a key element of Kate’s story is that she was totally unfamiliar with Disborough outside of her fits.
Blatchly’s testimony, while potentially damaging to Kate’s credibility, does still leave open the possibility that the explanation he attributes to Abigail Westcott is correct, which would mean that Kate hadn’t actually heard of Disborough, though she had been discussed in her physical presence. Abigail Westcott’s niece Lydia Penoyer, however, relates stories in her testimony that unambiguously cast doubt on Kate’s reliability. She says that she once heard her aunt say that Kate was such a lying girl that no one could believe her, and that she doubted that any of the women Kate accused were witches any more than she herself was. According to Penoyer, Westcott also said that her husband was totally credulous about Kate’s tales and that he would believe her before he believed Joseph Bishop, Jonathan Bell (the minister and one of the commissioners in Stamford, respectively), or even herself, his own wife. Penoyer also testifies that, at a different time, she was talking to Kate herself and she told her that she had never told Joseph Garnsey and Nathaniel Wyatt, two men who had been by her master’s house while he was gone and had seen her in her fits, that she was possessed by the Devil.
"Streams of Living Water"
"If anyone is thirsty, he should come to Me and drink! The one who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, will have streams of living water flow from deep within him." - John 7:37b-38, HCSB
"But where hath the Scripture said that 'rivers of living water shall flow from his belly'? Nowhere. What then meaneth, 'He that believeth on Me, as the Scripture saith'? Here we must place a stop, so that the, 'rivers shall flow from his belly,' may be an assertion of Christ." - St. John Chrysostom (tr. Philip Schaff), Homily on John 7:37-44
I just read this in Chrysostom, and I don't think I've ever seen this resolution anywhere...
Saturday 2 September 1665
This morning I wrote letters to Mr. Hill and Andrews to come to dine with me to-morrow, and then I to the office, where busy, and thence to dine with Sir J. Minnes, where merry, but only that Sir J. Minnes who hath lately lost two coach horses, dead in the stable, has a third now a dying. After dinner I to Deptford, and there took occasion to 'entrar a la casa de la gunaica de ma Minusier', and did what I had a mind ... To Greenwich, where wrote some letters, and home in pretty good time.
Cromwelliana
Various posts on Cromwell are appearing across the blogosphere:
- A collected blog carnival at Edward Vallance: 1, 2, 3.
- Christopher Thompson on new evidence of Cromwell’s involvement in Huntingdon politics in the 1620s.
- Gavin Robinson on Cromwell’s military career, and a comparison to that of his contemporary Sir William Balfour.
Father and son
This post is a (late) contribution to Edward Vallance’s blog carnival on Oliver Cromwell, which marks the 350th anniversary of Cromwell’s death.
Amongst the dominant themes that have emerged in recent studies of Oliver Cromwell are one that might be called the “linguistic turn”, and another that might be called the “personal turn”.
The first has involved paying far closer attention to the language deployed by Cromwell in his letters and speeches. This has resulted in a far more nuanced understanding of his religion, as historians have realised the extent to which texts by Cromwell are imbued with scriptural references. Robert Paul pioneered this approach in the 1950s, but more recently it has been picked up again by historians like Blair Worden (looking at Cromwell’s belief in providence and his reaction to the failure of the Hispaniola expedition) and John Morrill and Philip Baker (looking at Cromwell’s attitudes to Charles I and monarchy more generally during the late 1640s).
The second theme has emerged in John Morrill’s revision of Cromwell’s early years. Morrill has re-examined Cromwell’s education, his marriage, and the ups and downs of his life before the 1640s. As a result, a picture of a humbler man during the early 1630s has emerged, not by any means destined for greatness. More recently, it has been seen particularly in the work of Patrick Little, who has looked at Cromwell’s interests in hawking and racehorses. Through a greater understanding of Cromwell’s personal life, historians have been able to apply new insights to his public life. Morrill has prompted a reassessment of Cromwell’s early career, and Little will prompt a reassessment of political culture under Cromwell in the 1650s.
Cromwell’s letters and speeches have been picked over by generations of historians. Since Thomas Carlyle collected them together in the 1840s, and particularly since W.C. Abbott produced a more modern (yet flawed) edition a hundred years later, they have been a key starting point for students of Cromwell. And yet the two approaches above have by no means been exhausted. Cromwell’s complex personality means that both are still capable of bearing fruit. What follows is an example of the layers of interpretation that can be found in even what at first seem relatively straightforward texts. As a case study it does not tell us anything new about Cromwell: but it does, I hope, give an idea of what lurks beneath the surface in many Cromwellian texts.
The text below is a letter Oliver Cromwell sent to his son Richard on 2 April 1650:
I take your Letters kindly: I like expressions when they come plainly from the heart, and are not trained nor affected.
I am persuaded it’s the Lord’s mercy to place you where you are: I wish you may own it and be thankful, fulfilling all relations to the glory of God. Seek the Lord and His face continually: — let this be the business of your life and strength, and let all things be subservient and in order to this! You cannot find nor behold the face of God but in Christ; therefore labour to know God in Christ; which the Scripture makes to be the sum of all, even Life Eternal. Because the true knowledge is not literal or speculative; ‘no,’ but inward; transforming the mind to it. It’s uniting to, and participating of, the Divine nature (Second Peter, i. 4): ‘That by these ye might be partakers of the Divine Nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.’ It’s such a knowledge as Paul speaks of (Philippians, iii. 8 — 10): ‘Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. For whom I have suffered the loss of all things; and do count them but dung that I may in Christ, and be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by Faith; — that I may know Him, and the power of His Resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings ; being made conformable unto His Death.’ How little of this knowledge is among us ! My weak prayers shall be for you.
Take heed of an unactive vain spirit! Recreate yourself with Sir Walter Ralegh’s History: it’s a Body of History; and will add much more to your understanding than fragments of Story. — Intend to understand the Estate I have settled: it’s your concernment to know it all, and how it stands. I have heretofore suffered much by too much trusting others. I know my Brother Major will be helpful to you in all this. You will think, perhaps, I need not advise you to love your Wife! The Lord teach you how to do it; or else it will be done ill-favouredly. Though Marriage be no instituted Sacrament, yet where the undefiled bed is, and love, this union aptly resembles that of Christ and His Church. If you can truly love your Wife, what ‘love’ doth Christ bear to His Church and every poor soul therein, — who “gave Himself” for it and to it! — Commend me to your Wife; tell her I entirely love her, and rejoice in the goodness of the Lord to her. I wish her everyway fruitful. I thankher for her loving Letter.
I have presented my love to my Sister and Cousin Ann, &c. in my Letter to my Brother Major. I would not have him alter his affairs because of my debt. My purse is as his: my present thoughts are but to lodge such a sum for my two little Girls; — it’s in his hand.
At first glance this is a fairly straightforward letter from father to son. It is of value in understanding Oliver’s relationship with Richard - a mixture of affection and hints of concern that Richard face up to his responsibilities, such as getting a grip of his new estate. Oliver was concerned at what he perceived to be idleness on the part of his son, and in other letters complained that “my son is idle” and “in the dangerous time of his age”. Parts of the letter are often quoted in analysis of the relationship between father and son.
The letter is also intriguing for its insight into puritan courtship and kinship networks. “Brother Major”, referred to at the end of the letter, is Richard Maijor, Richard’s father-in-law. Richard had married his daughter, Dorothy, on 1 May 1649 at Hursley in Hampshire. Cromwell clearly professed a warm relationship with his daughter-in-law, writing to her as well as to Richard. And in Richard Maijor he found a solidly parliamentarian and puritan member of the gentry, who had served as sheriff of Hampshire in 1640 and became a commissioner for sequestration in March 1643.
However, there is more to this letter. One additional context is providential. Cromwell’s second sentence about Richard’s newly married state - and his use of the word “mercy” betray his strongly providential understanding of how God interacted with the world. As for Calvin, so for Cromwell: not a sparrow fell from its perch without God’s intervention. This is bolstered by his recommendation of Ralegh’s History, a work which demonstrated the role of God’s providence in the progress of history. And yet providence was only one side to how Cromwell approached the world. Blair Worden has argued that there were two Cromwells: “beside the Cromwell whose God exalts every valley and makes every mountain low, there is the Cromwell who knows that… God’s servants are obliged to consider the probability of the ways and means to accomplish”. Or putting it more succinctly:
As well as trust in God the saint must keep his powder dry.
The end of the letter reveals the more pragmatic Cromwell. It was not just God’s mercy that had brought Richard to marrying Dorothy. Cromwell had been in protracted negotiations with RIchard Maijor since the spring of 1648. For all his protestations at the end of the letter that he would “not have him alter his affairs because of my debt”, Cromwell sought to drive a hard bargain, with Major insisting that Cromwell gave Richard and Dorothy a £400 estate, while Cromwell sought to give them a parliamentary grant of land. The two year marriage negotiations nearly fell down at points over the marital finances. What the letter shows are some of the tensions not just within puritan providentialism, but within Cromwell.
Also interesting is Cromwell’s choice of texts. Apart from his famous letter to Mrs St John during the 1630s, texts that survive from the earlier part of his life quote the Bible only sparingly. In 1648, by contrast, letters suddenly turn into sustained meditations on the Old Testament, particularly the Book of Psalms and Isaiah. However, Cromwell’s texts of choice in this letter are both from the New Testament. Paul’s epistle to the Philippians is notable for its material on Paul’s opponents - both true believers in Rome, and Gentiles in Phillipi. This is not a million miles away from Cromwell’s position in 1650, with “malignant” enemies in Ireland and former true believers in Westminster and Scotland. The second epistle of Peter covers related themes, warning against the coming heretics. Why were these parts of the New Testament weighing on Cromwell’s mind in the spring of 1650? Such loose ends are intriguing. There is certainly scope for a more sustained analysis of Cromwell’s deployment of biblical language during the 1650s.
There is also the cryptic reference to having “suffered much by too much trusting others”. What does this refer to? It could perhaps be a reference to the shattered Independent alliance that had finally fractured in the late 1640s. During 1649, Cromwell made active attempts to court “royal Independents” like Oliver St John and Nathaniel Fiennes into rejoining his cause, but it is clear that their decision to part ways with him over the fate of Charles I affected him deeply. These were men with whom Cromwell was closely connected, both through kin and through faith. Analysis of Cromwell’s preoccupations during the early 1650s may well yield further insight into his attempts to rebuild this alliance.
In short, Cromwell’s letters and speeches will still yield new insights into his life. Blair Worden, in particular, has done much to reassess Cromwellian texts through these techniques. Hopefully Worden’s forthcoming biography of Cromwell will do much more to re-evaluate Cromwell’s life.
Recently noted around the web
What news from the Olympiad, Wolsey?
The scene: The Clock Court, Hampton Court Palace (above).
King Henry and Cardinal Wolsey are in conversation.
H: What news from the Olympic Games, Wolsey?
CW (nervous): I am pleased to say we are in third place behind the Holy Roman Empire and France, Majesty....
H (angry): What are you pleased about? This is an insult to the English crown . Why have you not delivered the crushing victory you promised? (Henry throws the book he is carrying in Wolsey's general direction)
CW: Our contestants toiled mightily, but we were unable to secure the expected victory in a number of key disciplines, Majesty.
H: (slightly calmer) How so?
CW: In the Torture team event, we were ahead of the Spanish after the Thumbscrews, but they have trained hard on the Rack, and extracted their confession several minutes ahead of us.
H: We must practice more; see to it. What of the Joust?
CW: Our man was bribed by the French and fell off his horse.
H: And the Rowing?
CW: The cannon that you specified only served to slow down our craft, Majesty.
H: THIS IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!. You must raise fresh benevolences from the nobility in order to build the finest training facilities in Europe. Find Thomas More and tell him to provide fresh heretics for Torture practice . Tell the contestants that I will double French bribes, and provide a barrel of ale for any winners. (He smiles) And losers will be drowned in the same barrel, ha ha!
CW: Yes of course, Majesty. Will you be attending the closing ceremony?
H: Are the maidens fair?
CW: Allegedly, Majesty.
H: Good. I must to prayers. But how is the design for the arms for the 1512 Games progressing, Wolsey?
CW: Most fair Majesty, does this design please you? The ladies in waiting finished sewing it this morning.
H: Not bad. But something a little more dynamic perhaps?
CW: I will see to it Majesty.
They leave...
Picture of Clock Court: Wikipedia Commons
Carnivalesque 42
Carnivalesque 42 (early modern) has been posted at Early Modern Notes.
Carnivalesque 42
Carnivalesque 42 (early modern) has been posted at Early Modern Notes.
Eighteenth-Century Reading Room Closing
Effective August 16, 2008, the Eighteenth-Century Reading Room will be closed to the public and the collection will be returned to the owner shortly thereafter. The Eighteenth-Century Reading Room blog will remain accessible but will not be updated. More information on the Speaker Series will be posted shortly.
We apologize for the serious inconvenience this will cause to those of you who have come to depend upon these resources.
Although certainly not a replacement for this collection, Graduate Center students and faculty are encouraged to use the database, Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO) which contains over 150,000 books printed in the 18th century.
