Davis Oxford Oath-Taking

MATTHEWM. DAVIS
"Oxford Oath-Taking:
The Evidence from Thomas Hearne's Diaries"
An article appearing in
The Age ofJohnson
A Scholarly Annual
Volume 22
Vot. 22 ISBN· I0, 0·40<1·62772-2
Vat. 22ISBN·13, 978·0·404·62772-0
Published December 2012
Editor
Jack Lynch
Book Review Editor
J. T. Scanlan
Contact: cdi torial@amspressi ne.com
Copyright © 2012
AMS Press, Inc.
New York
amspressinc.com

OXFORD OATH-TAKING:
THE EVIDENCE FROM
THOMAS HEARNE'S DIARIES
MATTHEW M. DAVIS
O
ne of the secondary disagreements in the extended debate about
Samuel Johnson's politics concerns oath-taking requirements and
practices at the University of Oxford in the 1720s. The chief partici-
pants in this debate-within-the-debate have been J. c. D. Clark and Howard
Weinbrot. Clark and Weinbrot have disagreed over whid1 oaths were taken,
when, and by whom, and have put forward rival hypotheses as to how
accessible Oxford was to Nonjurors in the 1720s.'
Clark has argued that Oxford practices in the 1720s were consistent with the
regulations set out in the Laudian statutes of 1636.' The Laudian statutes
concerning matriculation stipulated that "all those of16 years ofage who come
to be matriculated shall subscribe the Artid es of Faith and Religion [theThirty-
nine Articles], and shall take their corporal oath to acknowledge the suprem-
acy of the King [the oath of supremacy], [and shall swear] to be faithful to the
University, and to observe its statutes, privileges, and customs." As far as
graduation was concerned, the Laudian statutes stipulated that all students
wishing to take a degree must first subscribe the oath of allegiance.' In short,
according to the Laudian statues, the oath ofallegiance was required at graduation,
bllt not at matriculation.
Clark has suggested that the arrangement and timing of the various oaths
created a loophole that could be exploited by Nonjurors: yow1g men who
doubted the legality of the government could matriculate, pursue a course of
study at an Oxford college, and leave without ever taking the oath of alle-
giance, as long as they were willing to leave wi thout a degree. Clark concedes
that this loophole was narrowed in 1702, when Parliament passed addi tional
legislation. 13 W. Ill, c. 6 imposed additional oath-taking requirements on
169

170 THE AGE OF JOHNSON
tutors, professors, and heads of houses, and also on one specific group of
lUldergraduate matriculants: it required that all members of colleges "that are
or shall be of the fOlUldation (being of the age of eighteen years)" swear a new
oath of allegiance describing the monard1 as "lawful and rightful king" as well
as the strongly worded abjuration oath, explicitly abjuring the Stuarts' daim.
These new matriculation requirements were more stringent, but they applied
only to students who were (a) eighteen years of age and (b) "of the founda-
tion"-that is, to scholarship recipients, whose fees were subsidized by an
endowment or fOlUldation.Such sh,dents were known asfoul1datiol1ers in some
colleges, exhibitiol1ers or servitors at others. From 1702, all students who were of
age and "of the fOlUldation" were required to swear the oaths ofallegiance and
abjuration 01" I'l1atriculatiol1. The great majority of sh,dents, however, did not
fall into this category. Only a few were "of the fow1dation," and many were
YOlUlger than eighteen. Thus, according to Clark, the legislation of 1702
tightened the loophole in the Laudian statutes but did not close it altogether.
Clark's position is that Oxford practices continued to conform to the
regulations set out in the Laudian statues and the parliamentary requirements
of 1702 throughout the period in question, and that this allowed the great
majority of students to matriculate without having to swear either the oath of
allegiance or the oath of abjuration. He has argued that Jolmson was himself a
Nonjuror who was able to matriculate on this basis and ultimately left without
a degree, at least partly because he would have been called upon to subscribe
objectionable oaths if he had taken a degree or accepted a fellowship.
Weinbrot has vigorously disputed Clark's assessment ofJolmson's politics,
as well as his description of oath-taking practices at Oxford. He has argued
that Johnson was never a Nonjuror, and that his matriculation at Oxford
proves as mum. Weinbrot has claimed that Oxford practices evolved over
time, moving away from the stipulations set out in the Laudian statutes, so
that "no later than early in the reign of George I" - i.e., in the late 1710s or
early 1720s-the oath of allegiance began to be tendered at matriculation,
along with the oath of supremacy:'
The disagreement about the timing of the oaths is important for the larger
debate about Johnson's politics. If Weinbrot is correct that Oxonians of
Jolmson's era took not only the oath of supremacy but also the oath of
allegiance on matriculation, this would mean that scrupulous Nonjurors
would have found it difficult, if not impossible, to matriculate at Oxford. It
would also indicate that Johnson, who did matriculate, was probably 110t a
Nonjuror, at least not at this stage of his life.
TI1e Relnarks and Collections OfThonws Hen/'l1e are an important resource for
the evaluation of the rival claims in this debate. Hearne's journals, which fiIJ
more than 4,000 printed pages, provide the most complete view of Oxford life

Oxford Oath-Taking and Hearne's Diaries 171
we have for the years 1705-35' Both C1ark and Weinbrot have cited individual
passages from Hearne's diaries to support their claims, but neither scl10lar has
attempted a thorough analysis of this important primary source. The purpose
of this paper is to examine Hearne's diaries to see what they might tell us
about the tinting of oaths and the possibility of Nonjuring enrollment at
Oxford in the 1720s.
HEARNE'SLI FE
TI10mas Heame (bap. 1678, d. 1735) was the second son of George Heame, a
parish clerk in White Waltham, Berkshire. As a boy, Hearne showed academic
promise and was encouraged in his studies by the Jacobite squire Francis
Cherry of Shottesbrooke. Cherry arranged for Hearne to be tutored by the
well-known Nonjuring theologian Henry Dodwell, and subsequently paid for
him to study at St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, where Hearne enrolled in December
of 1695.'
At St. Edmtmd Hall, Hearne studied philology and history. In 1699 he took
his B.A., and on that occasion, he took the oath of allegiance. His decision to
take the oath must have raised some eyebrows in the Nonjuring circles in
which he had been educated. Hearne attempted to justify his decision in a pair
of essays written for C11erry, Dodwell, and their Nonjuring friends. In the first,
he asserted that lames n had deprived his subjects of their liberties, to the
point where his actions posed a threat to "the Common GOOD of the NATION."
The king's actions, I-Iearne argued, necessitated "either his Deposition, or, at
least, that a Restraint should be put upon him some other way." In the second
essay, written about the same time and published many years later under the
title"A Vindication of Those Who Take the Oath of Allegiance," Hearne
argued that subjects might set aside a prior oath (including an oath of loyalty
to a monarch) if upholding the oath would be contrary to the welfare of the
people:
The Prime End of an Oath is to be preferred to one which is Inferior. The
Prime End of an Oath is The Good DJ fhe Persons cOl1ccrllcd ill it. . If the
keeping of the Onlh be really alld truly illCOIISisfcllt with the Welfare ofn People,
ill sllbverting fhe Flllldal1lcIlfni Laws which Support it!. } I do 1101see how sllch
all Oath con fili I/cS to ObJige.7
Hearne took the oath of allegiance to King William on the basis set out in these
essays in 1699, when he took his B.A. He took the oath of allegiance again
during Queen Anne's reign, in 1703, when he took his M.A. (Hearne,
10:227-28).

Hearne began his career at the Bodleian Library in 1701. In 1712, he was
chosen as second librarian. In 1715 he was elected Ard1itypographus and
Superior Bedel of civil law and was called upon, once again, to take the oath of
allegiance. By this time Hearne's views on oath-taking had changed, probably
in large part because of the influence of his friend, the Nonjuring antiquary
11,omas Sn1ith' Hearne was no longer comfortable swearing allegiance to the
reigning powers on the basis he had articulated in the two essays of 1699.
Instead, he devised a subterfuge that allowed him to satisfy the letter of the
law wl1ile evading the spirit. Hearne recited the first part of the required
formula in a voice barely audible, mlLlllbling "I, Thomas Hearne, do sincerely
pron1ise and swear that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to 11is
Majesty...." 11,en he tailed off and omitted the last words of the oath, in
wl1idl the Hanoverian King George I was specified as the king to whom
allegiance was due. Hearne later described 11is actions on tl1is occasion in the
tl1ird person:
Nor did he [Hearne] take the Oath of Allegiance, read ing only the first
Part of it, so as to suppose K[ing] J[ames] wch
he did by speaking in a very
low Voice, tho' this was not regarded, to his grea t Surprize. (Hearne,
5:1 7-18)
This evasion was success.ful. 111e registrar recorded that Hearne had taken the
oath of allegiance, and Hearne was, apparently, satisfied in his conscience
because he had, in fact, pledged his allegiance to King James rather than King
George.
[I} was accordingly admitted to both Offices having first taken the Oaths
of Supremacy & Allegiance, without saying to whom y~ Allegiance Oath
was taken, in w ch he [the registrarj did right, it being certain yt if he had
said I swore to K. lames (as J really did) he should be brought into a
Scrape as well as myself. (5:45-46)
Hearne n1ight, perhaps, have sworn the oath of allegiance again in the same
evasive way on subsequent occasions. However, he was soon confronted with
a more forn1idable obstacle. 1 Geo. I, s. 2, c. 13, required Hearne and other
LU1iversity officeholders to subscribe not only the oath ofallegiance but also the
much more strongly worded oath of abjuration, on penalty of deprivation, by
23 January 1716. The oath of abjuration required the oath-taker explicitly to
abjure the St1.larts' claim to the throne. This was too much for many English-
men, including Hearne. Hearne could tJ1ink of no way to finesse this oath.
AJtJl0Llgh he had been a Jacobite for many years, the oath of abjuration forced
Hearne to define himself as a Nonjmor or, more precisely, a non-abjmor. In

November 1715, he resigned his positions as Ardletypographus and Superior
Bedel because he was unwi lling to take the oath of abjuration that was
requi red of him if he wished to keep these positions.
[ItJ was my fu ll Resolution then, if the King [lames! should not come in,
not to act in either office, because I am fully resolved not to take the
Oaths (i.e. as the Oath of Allegiance is clogg/cl vv ith the damnable Oa th of
Abjuration), come w hat wi ll of it. (H earne, 5: ] 37)
From this point on, Hearne refused both the oath of allegiance (whidl he had
previously taken, with reservations) and the oath of abjuration (whim he had
not previously taken), and declined all positions that would require these
oaths. He was removed from his positions at the Bodleian and locked out of
the library. He lived on in Oxford for another twenty years, making a living by
selling subscriptions to his antiquarian publishing projects and filling the
pages of his diary with news, scholarly reflections, and gossip.
Hearne's own experiences provide us with a useful starting point for a
discussion of Oxford oath-taking practices. We note that he was called upon to
take the oath of allegiance when he took his degrees and when he was
promoted to various wliversity positions. There is no evidence that he was
called upon to take the oath of allegiance when he matriculated. In fact, the
evidence strongly implies that he was 110t asked to subscribe the oath of
allegiance at that tinle. Hearne's Nonjuring patron, Francis Cherry, d id not
scruple to send him to Oxford, and Heam e did not feelcompelled to justify his
willingness to take the oath of allegiance to his patron Wltil he took his first
degree, in 1699, by wllidl point he had been enrolled for the better part of four
years. The trajectory of Hearne's early career indicates that the oath of
allegiance was not, in this early period, generally tendered at matriculation,
and that men who doubted the legality of the Willianli te settlement, as Hearne
certainly d id, could matriculate and attend for several years before being
confronted with the oath of allegiance.
SAMUEL PARKER
In his diaries, Hearne mentions several Nonjurors who were able to enroll in
Oxford colleges in the post-Revolution years, notlling dalmted by the requi re-
ments of matriculation. One of them was Hearne's sometime friend, Samuel
Parker (1681-1730), the son of Samuel Parker, Bishop of Oxford (1640-88).
Bishop Parker had remained loyal to James IT until llis death during the
political crisis of 1688. His son Samuel was a Nonjuror for all of his adul t life
and seems to have embraced the principles of the Nonjurors at an early age. As
early as 1697, when he was sixteen, Samuel Parker identified llimself as a

Nonjuror and received praise and encouragement from Thomas Smith, the
Cambridge-based Nonjuror who, as we have seen, also encouraged Heame.'
Heame notes that Parker worshiped in a separate Nonjuring congregation
for some time prior to his marriage c. 1700:
'Tis said that MT
, Holla1ld (Johll) of Mertoll College, went to Mr
, 5am. Parker,
the Non-Ju ror, soon after he had married Mr
, e lements (the Bookseller's)
Daughter, on purpose to dispute with him against his drawing his w ife
over to the Communion held up by the greatest part of Non-Jurors in
behalf of the deprived Bishops; but that MT
, Parker was too hard fo r him,
& thereupon his w ife commu nicated w ith the Non-jurors. (Hearne, 1:37)
Despite his Nonjuring principles, Parkerenrolled atTrinity College, Oxford,
and matriculated in June 1694. He remained in residence for more than five
years-more than enough time to meet the requirements for a degree.JO
However, as Hearne noted, Parker eventually "left .. . without a Degree upon
accountofthe Oaths" (Heame, 10:307).For Parker, the requirements associated
with matriculation were, apparently, not problematic. It was the oaths that
would have been required 011 graduatiol1 that presented a problem. Heame
initially contrived to subscribe the oath of allegiance in an evasive way. Parker,
a more scrupulous Nonjuror at this point in his career, simply left Trinity
without taking a degree."
Two ScOTTISH NONJURORS AT OXFORD
On 10 June 1715, Hearne celebrated "King James m d's Birth Day" by walking
out from Oxford to nearby Foxcomb, with several other Oxford Jacobites. The
purpose of the excursion was "to drink King James's Health & to shew other
tokens of Loyalty" at a safe distance from Whiggish university authorities
(Heame, 5:65).
One of the men in the party was "honest Will Fullerton," a Scotsman whom
Heame described as "a non-Juring Civilian [i.e., a Nonjuring student of the
civil law] of Balliol College." WiUiam Fullerton was a son of the Nonjuring
Scottish bishop John Fullerton.12
His father I,ad been confirmed as a bishop by
the king across the water. Since Fullerton was raised in a Nonjuring. Jacobite
family, it seems safe to assume that his Nonjuring principles were in place
upon his arrival at Oxford rather than acquired there. Fullerton matriculated
on 27 October 1710 and was still enrolled at Balliol in 1715, when he and
Heame set out for Foxcomb to celebrate James III's natal day. Fullerton
ultimately left Balliol without taking a degree. Heam e indicates that he left
because he was called upon to take the oaths and refused to do SOD

Another member of the 10 June Jacobite drinking party was "Mr. Eccles."
James Eccles was the son of William Eccles of Edinburgh. He seems to have
been a companion of William Fullerton's. He enrolled at Balliol and matricu-
lated on 27 October 1710, the same day as Fullerton. Hearne described him as
another "nonjuring civilian," a Nonjuror who had matriculated to study the
civil law. Eccles was still enrolled at the time of the Foxcomb expedition in
1715 and ultimately left Balliol without a degree."
Fullerton and Eccles were able to matriculate and study at Balliol for several
years without taking the oath of allegiance, just as Hearne himself had done at
St. Edmund Hall and Samuel Parker at Trinity. These men's experiences are
clearly more consistent with Clark's thesis than Weinbrot's. However, these
cases are of limited value when it comes to assessing the claims in the Clark-
Weinbrot debate, for Weinbrot has argued that "the tinling of the oaths . ..
changed," and that new procedures requiring the oath of allegiance at
matriculation were in place "by no later than early in the reign of George L"
This means that the experiences of students who matriculated prior to the
accession of George I in 1714 are of limited probative value in evaluating
Weinbrot's claims about Oxford practices in the 1720s. What is needed to test
Weinbrot's claims is information from the 1720s. Fortunately, Hearne lived
until 1735 and several of his journal entries from the 1720s and early '30s cast
light on Oxford oath-taking practices in this later period. Some of these entries
involve Samuel Parker's sons.
PARKER'S SoNS
After leaving Trinity College without a degree, Samuel Parker lived on in
Oxford for three decades, writing, tutoring, and running a boardinghouse,
until his death in July 1730." For many years he refused to worship with the
juring Churcll of England. However, he was persuaded by Dodwell's Case ill
View and, after the death of Bishop Lloyd, the last of the deprived bishops, he
resumed comrmmion with the established churcll (OONB; Hearne, 3:160).
From 1710 on, Parker worshipped in his parish church, St. Peter-in-the-East,
but he seems to have followed Dodwell's advice and signalized his dissent
during the state prayers. Hearne wrote that Parker "rose up and made odd
Motions at the immoral petitions" (Hearne, 10:333). Another observer reported
that Parker signaled his dissent by "turning over the leaves of his prayer book
with unnecessary vehemence so as to avoid hearing, if possible, the unpalat-
able words.""
Although he returned to his parish cllurch for Sunday worship, Parker
remained a Nonjuror, unwilling to accept any post that would require the
objectionable oaths. He also remained a Jacobite. A European traveler who

visited his house in 1713 reported that Parker had five portraits ofJames ill in
his dining room.17
Samuel Parker raised his sons in accordance with his Jacobite and Nonjur-
ing principles. Heame says that he taught his son Richard to "rise up . .. &
make odd Motions" to signal his objections to the state prayers and also urged
him not to take the oath of allegiance (Heat'ne, 10:332- 33). However, Parker's
Jacobitism seems to have moderated somewhat in the last months of his life. A
significant dlange in his thinking about political affairs and the oaths appears
to have taken place in the months before his death in July 1730. During this
time Parker told Hem'ne that he thought it might be time for the Stuarts to
formally renounce their claim to the throne (Heame, 11:473). By early 1730,
Parker also seems to have made up his mind that it would be acceptable for
one of his sons to take the oaths of allegiance and abjuration. He solicited for
his eldest son, Samuel Parker (1703?-67), a position as a clerk at Magdalen
College, Oxford -even though the position would require subscription of the
oaths of allegiance and abjuration, oaths which he had previously urged his
sons to avoid. Heat'ne wTOte about Parker's decisions in his diary:
Mr
, Parker's eldest son, Samuel, is a lea ther-gilder by Trade, & served his
whole time [i.e., his apprenticeship] in London, but he is now Clarke of
Magd. Coil., being made so by Of, Butler about Easter Term last [April/
May 17301, by the obsequious flattery & cringing of his Father, Samuel
Parker, so that he hath taken the Oaths to qua lify himself, & hath left off
his Trade, at the same time that a you nger brother, Ri chard Parker, hath
left a Scho larship at Lincoln College & thrown off his gown, that (as I am
told ) he ma y avoid the Oaths. The father is much blamed for perswading,
at least permitting, one to take the Oaths, & hindering the other from
taki ng them; for tho' he did well in not letting the younger take them, yet
he was very weak in making Interest for him to be Scholar of Lincoln
College, and afterwards in pulling off his Gown, while he is as ye t a boy,
as it were, and unprovided for otherwise, when it would have been far
better to have put him to a Trade. (Hearne, 10:332-33)
Heat'ne repeated the same story in another diary entry several months later:
[Mr. ParkerJ persuaded ... his leldestJSon ISamuel] to take the Oaths, at
the same time that a younger Son, MT
, Richard Parker, Scholar of Lincoln
College, declined them. (11:22)
Here we have evidence from the post-I720 period that is more consistent
wi th Clark's description ofOxford practices than it is "vith Weinbrot's. Heame
states that Ricllard Parker was able to enroll in Lincoln College and attend for

several years without subscribing the oaths of allegiance or abjuration, whidl
would have been objectionable to him (or at least to his father). Official Oxford
records confirm the basic facts of Hearne's story and allow us to be more
specific about dates. TIley reveal that Ridlard Parker (1712-42) enrolled at
Lincoln College and matriculated in October 1725." Parker paid fees at Lincoln
for almost four years. He disappeared from the college battels in JWle 1729 and
left without taking a degree, though he had been enrolled long enough to
obtain one.I'
Within a year of Rimard Parker's wi thdrawal from Lincoln College, his
father seems to have set aside his long-standing scruples about the oaths, for
he solicited for his eldest son, Samuel, a position at Magdalen College that
required the oaths. Samuel Parker, Jr., was matriculated as a clerk at Magdalen
on 14 May 1730, about eleven months after his brother had withdrawn from
Lincoln College and just two months before his father passed away."
THE YOUNGER D ODW ELLS
Hearne's diaries provide additional evidence that, in the 1720s, as in earlier
periods, most Oxford students were called upon to take the oath of allegiance
for the first time at graduation, rather than upon matriculation. Particularly
relevant in this regard are his comments on the uruversity careers of Henry
Dodwell's sons, Henry Dodwell, Jr., and William Dodwell. As we saw earlier,
Hearne was a protege of the Nonjuring theologian Henry Dodwell, Sr. He
therefore took note when Dodwell's sons enrolled in Oxford colleges in the
1720s. Hearne kept an eye on the yowlg men to see if they would uphold the
Nonjuring principles of their father or adopt the more permissive ideas of their
mother, which Hearne deplored. Hearne was scandalized when, in March
1727, Dodwell's son and namesake Henry Dodwell, Jr., took the oath of
allegiance in order to receive his B.A.:
This Lent took the Degree of Bachelour of Arts ... Mr
, Hen. Dodwell,
Commoner of Magd. Hall, Son of the late pious and lea rned Mr
, Henry
Dodwell. So that by taking a degree, he hath taken the Oath of Allegiance
to the Duke of Brunswick, as King of England, a th ing directly contrary to
the Principles o f his late Father, who abhorred alllhoughts of this nature.
(Hearne, 9:287; see also 9:290, 10:75)
Here Heame clearly states that the oath of allegiance was required at gradua-
tiol1, and the logic of the passage makes it clear that this oath had not been
previously required at matriculation. To Heam e's way of thinking, the
YOWlger Dodwell did not act "contrary to the principles of his father" when he
matriculated (because the oath of allegiance was not then required of him), but

he did act contrary to those principles when he decided to take a degree
(because the oath of allegiance was required at that point).
Hearne was less surprised, but no less disapproving, two years later, in
November 1729, when Dodwell's younger son, WilJiam, indicated that he
intended to follow his elder brother's example:
On Monday last, Mr
, Wm
Dodwell of Trin. CoIl. called upon me ... and
told me that the next Congregation he designed to stand for his Degree of
Bach. of Arts, to well I said nothing (he hurrying away), he being, I
suppose, fu lly resolved to act contrary to the Nonjuring Principles.
(Hearne, 10:202)
Here, again, the clea r implication is that it was not contrary to Nonjming
principles for a young man to enroll in an Oxford college and lI1atriculate at the
uni versity, but it would be contrary to those principles to take a degree, since
that would require the oath of allegiance. Hearne was Lmhappy that William
Dodwell seemed determined to take a degree, but his surly silence evidently
did notl"ling to deter the young man. A month later, on 22 December 1729,
Hearne wrote,
Yesterday, after dinner, called upon me ... M r
, Will Dodwell ofTrin. Coil.,
who is now Bach. of Arts . .. I entered into no manner of discourse with
him about Principles, tho' I cannot but be much concerned that so great a
man as his Father was should leave two sons that act quite contrary to the
Principles of the true Non~Jurors?
GENERAL PRACTICE
Hearne's biographical notes on these scions of Nonjuring families at Oxford
suggest that the arrangements and timing of the oatlls we noted for ti,e early
years of the eighteenth century were still in place when )ohnson em olled at
Pembroke College in the late 1720s. One might try to avoid the inference by
arguing that practices probably varied from college to college, and that the
examples cited above-from Trinity College, MagdaJen Hall, Lincoln College,
and Magdalen College-do not prove anything about practices at Pembroke
College, but this argument falters when we recall that mah'iClllation and
gradllation were ulIiversitlj cerel11onies. There were many procedures and
practices that were managed by the individual colleges, and might be man-
aged differently in different colleges, but matriculation and graduation were
not among thenl. TIlese ceremonies were Ilniversih) ceremonies, and the
requirements associated with them were centrally administered." We know
this from other sources but, again, Hearne's diary offers abLU1dant confirma-

tion. On three separate occasions during the period when Weinbrot says
practices had altered, Hea rne indicated that they had not, and that all mem-
bers of the uni versity conmlunity were governed by the same basic require-
ments, regardless of whidl college they were enrolled in.
On 22 November 1721 Hearne dlarged Thomas Tanner with misrepresent-
ing the timing of the oaths at Oxford for political reasons in his revised edition
of Anthony 11 Wood's Athellae Oxol7ierlses:
H e [Tannerl hath altered all things so, & made him [WoodJ talk in sllch a
manner, as if Mr. ''''oDd had been Cl do<v n right Villain, & had not known
what even the most ignorant Scholar knows. How com es it, otherwise, to
pass tha t more than once Gentlemen, when they are ma triculated, are
represen ted to take the Oaths of Allegiance & Supremacy? Mr. Wood
could not w rite so, since nobody knew better that the Oath of Supremacy
only, & not the Oath of Allegiance, is then taken. Nor does the Statute
require an Oath of Allegiance at that time. But this wns added to bring a
slur upon the University, and out of Cl trimming Design, as it ..'as also out
of Design to please the Trim mers that the 0', ITannerl hath left out the
just Characters of Dr
, WaIJ is & O r, Bathurst, weh he ought to have kept
in,23
Both O ark and Weinbrot have drawn attention to this passage, but they have
interpreted it in very different ways. Oark has cited Hearne's remarks as
evidence that Oxford oath-taking practices continued to follow the require-
ments set out in the Laudian statutes, without alteration. Weinbrot has cited
the remarks as evidence that uni versity practices were modified and that the
oath of allegiance was added to the matriculation procedures. The disagree-
ment turns on the words 1 have italicized in the quotation above: "this was
added." The questions are wlralwas added?-and by wholll? Weinbrot and Oark
have very different ideas about this. [n his discllssion of this passage, Weinbrot
quotes Hearne as saying that the "Oath of Al legiance ... was added to bring a
slur upon the university, and out of a trimming Design." Weinbrot then notes
that "He [Hearne] does not claim that the addition was limited to Foundation-
ers" (Aspecls, p. 315). In other words, Weinbrot presents the "addition" as a
reference to the modification he believes was made to lUliversity oath-taking
procedures. He argues that it was lire IIIliversily officials who added something
-specifically, the oath of allegiance-and he cites Hearne as acknowledging
this addition as fact. If, however, the passage from Hearne's diary printed
above is read in toto, it becomes quite clear that this is not what Hearne is
saying at all. Hearne is clea rly stating-as he stated on numerous other
occasions-that university practices have 1101 d1anged and that the oath of
allegiance is still not required of most students lU1til graduation.Hearne claims

that it is Tanner, not the university officials, who has made an addition:in his
revision of Athenae Oxol'lienses, Taru1er has added to what Wood had written in
the earlier edition. He has erroneously-and, Hearne believes, deliberately-
added the oath of allegiance to the list of matriculation requirements given
there, thus giving an inaccurate account of actual wuversity practice. More-
over, Hearne argues that Tanner made tIus "addition" to bring a slur upon the
university-just as he made deletions elsewhere in Ius edition, e.g., when he
onutted comments on Wallis and Bathhurst that were distasteful to the
"Trimn1ing" (moderate, complying, anti-Jacobite) interest at Oxford.When the
passage is read in context, it dearly supports Clark's daim that oath-taking
requirements continued to conform to the guidelines in the Laudian stahltes,
without an alteration of the sort Weinbrot has hypothesized.
Hem'ne made sinular statements about the timing of the oaths elsewhere in
Ius diary. When one of Ius enemies decided to reprint Ius "Vindication of
Those Who Take the Oath of Allegiance" in February 1729/30, Heame wrote
that the republication of this youthful essay was pointless. All it proved was
that he had once held views whid1 he had long since renoLUlced. As for the
oath of allegiance, there was no need to prove that Hearne had previously
taken it. Heame admitted as mud1 himself. Indeed, there was no reason for
him to admit it. It was "plain" and obvious to all, Heame wrote, that he had
taken it, "from my being a regular Graduate, degrees taken regularly [i.e., non-
honorary degrees1being not done without taking the Oath of Allegiance at the
same time" (Hearne, 10:243). Hearne's point is that those who were familiar
with Oxford practices in 1729/30 would naturally (and correctly) assume that
Thomas Heame, B.A. and M.A., had sworn the oath of allegiance when he took
his degrees in 1699 and 1703. Here again Hearne's remarks imply that the
tin1ing of the oath of allegiance did not d1ange from 1699 to 1729/30, and also
that the basic pattern of requirements did not vary from college to college.
Because practice was consistent at the wuversity level, one could reliably infer
that a graduate like Hearne had taken the oath ofallegiance, without bothering
to ask whid1 college he had attended."
In another entry dated 17 Marm 1730/31, Heame wrote of the oath of
allegiance, "whim all are obliged to take, that take Degrees regularly in our
Universities" (Hearne, 10:395-96 n.l). He did 110t say that all who matriculate
are obliged to take the oath of allegiance. Nor did he say tI,at practice varied
from college to college. Across all of these remarks, Hearne's position is quite
consistent. His comments strongly suggest that oath-taking arrangements
associated with matriculation and graduation were standardized at the
wUversity level and that the typical Oxford shldent was not required to take
the oath of allegiance until he took a degree.

Oxford Oath-Taking and Heame's Diaries 181
HEARNE AS WITNESS: KNOWLEDGE AND BI AS
In The Age of Joh115011, vo!. 7, Weinbrot presented Hearne as Exhibit A in his
case against Clark: "The Nonjuror Thomas Heame's evidence begins a
refutation of Or. Clark" ("Historiography of Nostalgia," p. 192). An examina-
tion of Hearne's Remarks a11d Collectiol1s, however, suggests that it is not, on the
whole, a helpful source for Weinbrot. Although there are some passages that
are problematic for Clark (see especially n. 14), Hearne's diaries and letters
offer a great deal of support for his claim that Oxford oath-taking procedures
continued to follow the Laudian statutes without a major alteration. Hearne's
diary entries repeatedly contradict Weinbrot's claim that Oxford practice
evolved to the point where the oath of allegiance was tendered to all students
at matriculation. 111e evidence in Hearne's diaries suggests that the oath of
allegiance continued to be required of all students at graduation, but was not
required of most students at matriculation, and that Nonjurors exploited this
loophole to enrol!. But how reliable a source is Hearne?
As far as kl10wledge of Oxford culture and practices is concerned, one could
hardly ask for a better source. Heat'ne spent his entire adult life in Oxford, He
took the oath of allegiance at Oxford tlu'ee times in his early career, at least
once (and probably a second time) on the basis articulated in his 1699 letters,
and a third time with the help of mumbling and equivocation. However,
Hearne's sense of what he could do in good faith cl1anged over tin1e at1d he felt
lmable to subscribe the oath of allegiance in his later years, once it was
"clogged" with the oath of abjuration. He thus had experience of Oxford's
oath-taking requirements as a juror and a Nonjuror, in the pre-abjuration oath
period and the post-abjuration oath period, Hearne's career as a librarian was
derailed by his lmwillingness to subscribe the oaths from 1716 on, and he
spent his remaining years in Oxford, denolmcing those who took the oaths and
reconunending the "honest" men who refused or avoided them. Weinbrot has
argued that it is very unlikely that Hearne "would be ignorant of ceremonies
in whid1 [he himself] participated" (Aspects, p. 315). I agree, but if Heame is
indeed a reliable witness, I am afraid that does not bode well for Weinbrot's
thesis.
The question of bias may give readers who are familiar with Heat'ne more
pause. Heat'ne had a very strong political bias, which is visible in almost
everything he wrote. However, there is no reason to think that this bias would
lead him to misrecord the oath-taking arrangements at Oxford. Heame's
Jacobitism certainly colors how he reacts to oath-related decisions: he applauds
Samuel Parker for discouraging, or preventing, his son Rid1ard from taking
the oath of allegiance, and he criticizes the YOLmger Dodwells for taking this
oath and thus tacitly repudiating their father's Nonjuring principles, But there

does not appear to be any reason why Hearne's political outlook would make
him an unreliable witness as to the oath-taking arrangements themselves. If
anything, his Jacobite and Nonjuring principles made him acutely aware of
what one could and could not do at Oxford without subscribing the oaths of
allegiance and abjuration.
Weinbrot is on firmer grOlmd when he cites Thomas Tanner, Nicholas
Amllurst, and Benjanun Kennicott. Unlike Hearne, these men really are saying
that the oath of allegiance was required at matriculation. The question is
whether they were correct to say so, and on that score there are some grounds
for doubt. On the whole, Hearne seems to be a more persuasive witness than
any of the other three. Tanner, Amhurst, and Kennicott made isolated
assertions. Hearne recorded the practice of the university commUluty on
multiple occasions, over a period of three decades. Tanner, Aml1Urst, and
Kennicott were writing for a public audience and may have been guided by
partisan political motives. All three men were Wlugs who were active in
denigrating the Tory-Jacobite segment of the Oxford community. It would
have been tempting for them to add the oath of allegiance to the list of oaths
taken by all students on matriculation:ifOxford students could be represented
as having sworn allegiance to the reigning monarcll at matriculation, any
subsequentJacobite activities could be presented as perfidious violations of the
promises they had made at matriculation. Hearne, by contrast, wrote his
observations in a private diary, not intended for public consumption. Wl1at
reason could he have for nusrepresenting Oxford requirements and proce-
dures in a private journal?
In "Religion and Political Identity," C1ark put forward a suggestion that
might account for the reports of Amhmst and Kennicott: if both men were
"foundationers," they would, presumably, have been caJled upon to subscribe
the oath of allegiance on matriculation, in accordance with the 1703 act of
Parliament. They may have assUlned that other incoming students had the
same experience (pp. 89-94). In other words, if they were not led to make their
statements about oath-taking arrangements deliberately, from political bias, as
Hearne thought Tanner clearly was, Amhurst and Keruucott might have been
led to make them, inadvertently, generalizing inappropriately from their own
experiences as foundationers. In short, there would appear to be more and
better reasons for doubting the accmacy of the public, politically charged
claims of Turner, Amhurst, and Kennicott than there are for doubting the
accuracy of the repeated, private observations of Hearne.

HEARNE'S RECO RDS AND j OHNSON'S CAREER AT OXFORD
The excerpts from Hearne's diaries quoted above are relevant for a study of
Samuel Jol111son's career at Oxford because they document wUversity-wide
practices and the experiences of specific students from multiple colleges in the
years before, during, and immediately after Jol111son's own time at Pembroke
College. Just how relevant they are becomes clear when we rearrange the
events and remarks described earlier and present them in cIlIonological order:
22 November 1721: Hearne states (contra Tanner) that the oath of suprem-
acy is required at matriculation, but the oath of allegiance not until
graduation (Hearne, 7:300-301).
17 April 1723: Nonjuring scion Henry Dodwell, j 1'., of Magdalene Hall
matriculates (Foster, Aluu1I'1i Oxonienses, later series, 1:376).
11 October 1725: Nonjuring scion Richard Parker of Lincoln College
matriculates (see note 18).
23 March 1725/26: Nonjuring scion William Dodwell of Trinity College
matriculates (Foster, AluI/1I'1i Oxoniel1ses, later series, 1:376).
9 FebnJary 1726/27: Henry Dodwell, Jr., takes B.A., scandalizing Hearne
(Foster, Alunmi Oxolliellses, later series, 1:376; Hearne, 9:287).
31 October 1728: Jol111son enrolls at Pembroke College.'s
16 December 1728: Jol111son matriculates (Foster, Alul11l1i Oxol1ienses, later
series, 2:758).
June 1729: Richard Parker withdraws from Lincoln College, apparently to
avoid objectionable oaths (see note 19).
November/December 1729: William Dodwell takes B.A., scandalizing
Hearne (Foster, Alu/I'/I'li Oxol1iellses, later series, 1:376; Hearne, 10:202,
217).
December 1729: Samuel Johnson leaves Pembroke College (see note 25).
14 February 1729/30: Hearne notes in his diary that degrees "taken regu-
larly" require the oath of allegiance (Hearne, 10:243).
14 May 1730: Samuel Parker (1703?-1767) subscribes required oaths for
position as a clerk at Magdalen College (see n. 20).
17 Marcl1 1730/31: Hearne states that all Oxonians who "take Degrees
regularly" must take the oath of allegiance (Hearne, 10:395--96 n. 1).
The evidence in Hearne's diary suggests the following conclusions:
• General practice at the University of Oxford seems to have been
substantially consistent with the regulations set out in the Laudian
statues and the parliamentary legislation of 1703.

184
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
THE AGEOF JOHNSON
Students who were sixteen or older at the time of their matriculation
were evidently required to take the oath of supremacy, subscribe the
Thirty-nine Articles, and pledge to uphold the regulations of the
university at the time of matriculation. TIlese requirements might have
prevented scrupulous Roman Catholics from enrolling, but they would
presumably not have posed an obstacle to Anglican Nonjurors.
The majority of undergraduates were 110t required to take the oath of
allegiance or the oath of abjuration at matriculation; apparently, only
those who were "of the foundation" and eighteen years of age were
required to take these oaths at matriculation.
The oath ofallegiance was, however, required of all students at gradua-
tion.
TIle realbarriers forconscientious Anglican Nonjurors who were not "of
the foundation" were not the requirements associated with matricula-
tion but the requirements associated wi th graduation (i.e., the oath of
allegiance) and the assumption of a fellowship or teaclling post (i.e., the
oaths of allegiance and abjuration).
Conscientious Nonjurors could and did enroll at Oxford throughout the
early decades of the eighteenth century, matriculating and shldying but
not taking degrees. The oath-taking requirements passed by Whig
administrations in the wake of the Revolution of 1688-89appear to have
been quite effective at excluding Nonjurors from teaclling and adminis-
trative positions in the wuversity (e.g., as fellows, professors, heads of
halls, etc.) but rather less so in the case of undergraduates.
Heam e's diary casts doubt on Weinbrot's claim that, by the time
Johnson matriculated, Oxford practice had evolved to the point where
the oath of allegiance was required of all shldents at matriculation.
Heam e records no evidence ofSUcll a m ange and provides a great deal
of evidence for continuity in uluversity practice from 1703 to 1735.
TIle oaths were still a "live" issue in the late 1720s, when Johnson
enrolled at Pembroke College. Indeed, Ricllard Parker withdrew from
Lincoln College without a degree, evidently on account of the oaths,
while JOl1l150/'l was e/'lrol/ed at Pembroke, and William Dodwell took a
degree, forsaking the Nonjuring principles of his father and scandaliz-
ing Hearne, withil1 a fl?l.u weeks of JOhI1S011'S departllre from Pembroke.
Although the nwnber of Nonjuring students was probably on the wane
by this point, there were clearly still a few of them in attendance.
It is at least possible that Johnson exploited the "loophole" described in
tlus article to enroll at Pembroke and that he left Oxford without a
degree in part, as Clark has claimed, on account of the oaths that would
have been required at graduation.

NOTES
1. The debate over Oxford oath-taking was sparked by the first edition of J. c. D.
Clark's Ellglish Society, 1688-1832 (Ca mbridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985),
which argued that Johnson was Cl Nonjuror who had avoided the oath of allegiance
by leaving Oxford without grad uating (pp. 186-89). Donald Greene replied in the
second edition of The Politics of Sallluel /OliI/ SO II (Athens: Univ. of Georgia Press,
1990), asking, "what had graduation to do with taking oaths?" (pp. xxx-xxxi).
Clark set out his case in more detail in Sallluel joJ/I'lsoll: Literature, Religioll, alld
£I1glish Cl/Itl/rnl Politics/ram the Restoratioll to Romanticism (Ca mbridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1994), especially pp. 93-99. He also touched on the subject briefly in
"The Politics of Samuel )ohn5011," The Age of ]oll1lsoll: A Scholarly Annllal 7 (1996):
27-56, especially pp. 39-40. Weinbrot entered the debate with an extended critical
review, "Johnson, Jacobitism, and the Historiography of Nostalgia," The Age of
JOIIIISOll: A Scholarly A/,/lIual 7 (1996): 163-212, which included a discussion of
Oxford oath-taking (pp. 191-99). Clark replied to Weinbrot in "The Cu ltural
Identity of Samuel Johnson," The Age O!IOhIlSOIl: A Scholarly AIIIIlIal8 (1997): 15-70,
especially pp. 23-40. Weinbrot pressed his case in ")ohnson and jacobitism Redux:
Evidence, Interpretation, and Intellect-ual History/' The Age of/011115011: A Scholarly
Allllllal8 (1997): 89-125, especially pp. 92-99; Clark discussed Oxford oath-taking
arrangements briefly in "Religious Affiliation and Dynastic Allegiance in
Eighteenth-Century England," ELH 64, no. 4 (Winter 1997): 1029-67, especially pp.
]050-51, and at much greater length in "Religion and Political Identity: Samuel
)ohnson as a Nonjuror:' in Samuel JOllllSOll ill Historical Call text, ed. j. C. D. Clark
and Howa rd Erskine·Hill (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), pp. 79-145,
especia lly pp. 87-102. Weinbrot republished his earlier essays, with revisions, in
Aspects of Samuel Joll/Is01'l: Essays 011 His Arts, Milld, Afterlife, ami Politics (Newark:
Univ. of Delaware Press, 2005), especia lly pp. 312-39.
2. The summary of Clark's position given in paragraphs 2-4 of this essay is based
mainly on Clark's arguments in "Rel igion and Political Identity," especially pp.
88-89. All third·party quotations are reproduced from this article.
3. There were some other requirements for graduation, in addition to the oath of
allegiance, but I have chosen not to enumera te them here because they are not
relevant to the Clark-Weinbrot debate.
4. Weinbrot's clearest statement about the alleged changes in the timing of the oath
of allegiance come from his " Historiography of Nosta lgia," p. ]93. See also the
surrounding pages (pp. 191-99), and Aspects, pp. 314-15.
5. All citations to Hearne's diaries are to Remarks ami Collectiolls of Thomas H eamc, ]]
vols. (Oxford: Oxford Historical Society, 1885-1921).
6. Biographical infornlation on Hearne is taken from Theodor Harmsen's article in the
ODNS. Two other important sources are Hearne's Remarks and Collectiolls and
)oseph Foster, AllllIIl'li Oxolliwses, ea rl y series, 4 vols. (London, 1891-92), 2:685.
Allll1llli OxolliclIses is frequently cited in this article. The four volumes in the early
series cover the years ]500-1714. The fo ur volu mes in the later series (London,
1888) cover the yea rs 1715-1886.
7. [Thomas Hearnej, A Villdicatioll ofTllose Wllo Take the Oath of Allegiance (London,
1731), pp. 1, 24. This essay was written in June 1700 and published in 1731 by John

Bilstone, whose ai m was to embarrass Hearne.
8. For Smith's influence on Hea rne, see T. Harmsen, "High-Principled Antiquarian
Publishing: The Correspondence of Thomas Hea rne (1678-1735) and Thomas Smith
(1638-1 71 0)," Lins 23 (1996): 69-98, and Harmsen's ODNB entry on H earne.
9. Sam uel Parker (1681-1730) identified himself w ith the Nonju rors from at least 1697.
O n 12 Sept. 1697, he wrote to Smith, saluting him for his allegiance to "so just a
cause" (Bodleian MS Smith 53, fol. 3). On 16 November, Smith replied, exhorting
Parker to hold fast in his Nonjuring principles (Bodleian MS Smith 65, fol. 9(1.). I
cannot prove that Parker was al ready a Nonju ro r at the time of his matriculation
in 1694. He might ha ve identified with the Nonjurors after he ma tricu lated but
before his 1697 letters to Smith. This, however, seems some<'ha t unlikely. His
father, the bisho p of Oxford, was closely involved with james II du ring the last
months of his reign, and it seems likely that Parker vould have worked ou t his
political views w ithi n a year or two of his father's death and the deposition of
James rT. For many Englishmen, August of 1690 was a crucial month, as that was
the deadline by w hich incumbents V'lere requ ired to take the new oaths or forfeit
their positions.
10. Some key da tes in the academic career of Samuel Parker (168]-]730) are set down
in Foster, Alu1IIIli Oxolliellses, ea rly series, 3:1116. Foster does not indicate when
Parker left Trinity, but converging evidence points to the year 1700. Parker
matriculated as a regular, fee-payi ng commone r (i.e., he was apparently not "of the
foundation") in 1694 and pa id £7 caution money at that time. This caution money
was returned to him in 1700 (Trinity College, Oxford, Archive, Cau tion Account B,
r. 53 and 65d). The preface to Parker's Six Philosophical Essays UpOIl Severnl Subjects
by S.P. Gelll. ofTr;,tity College ill Oxford (London, 1700) is signed "Trin. ColI. Oxon.
Febr. 20,1699." The preface to his next book, Sylva: Familiar Letters UpOII Occasional
Subjects, by Sam /lel Parker, Gellf., mentions his time at Trinity but is signed
"Oxford," w ith no mention of a collegiate affiliation, and dated "September 29th
1700." I am grateful to Clare Hopkins, Archi vist at Trinity College, for the
information on Parker's career at Trinity and images of the Trinity caution books
(persona l com munica tion, 6 Jan. 2011 , 13 Jan. 201]).
11. The atti tudes of Samuel Parker and Thomas Hearne in terms of politica l and
religious scrupulosity grad ually reversed themselves. Parker followed Dodwell's
lead and returned tocommunion w ith the ju ri ng church in 1710. Hearne declined
to do so and adhered to the more radical separatist Nonjurors, sometimes called
"the church of Dr. Hickes." In political affairs, as well, Pa rker grew less militant
over time, while Hearne grew more so. In the months before his death Parker came
to think that the 5tuarts should resign their claim to the throne. He even allowed
one of his sons to take the oaths of allegiance and abjuration, though he himself
evidently never did. Hearne moved in the opposite d irection, fro m swearing the
oaths- in a particu lar sense, and w ith reservat-ions- in the early yea rs of his career
to a stricter refu sal in the post~ 1 7 1 5 yea rs. These differences contributed to a
deterioration of relations between the two men from 1715 on.
12. On Bishop John Fullerton, see David M. Bertie, Scottish Episcopal Clergy, 1689-2000
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), p. 46.

13. For references to William Fu llerton's subsequen t difficu lties a t Oxford, see Foster,
A/ul/llIi Oxoll icJlses, early series, 2:540. Ma ny yea rs la te r, in 1728, Fullerton was
awarded two Oxford degrees " by diploma"-a B.Med. and D.Med . These we re
honorary degrees, however, and as such they required no oaths. See Hea rne,
10:5-6.
14. For pa rticula rs of James Eccles, see Foster, A11//1/11; OXOlliellSeS, early series, 2:443.
Several other men who participated in the Jacobite festivities of 10 Ju ne "1715 a rc
not treated in the body of this essay. The bookselle r Richard Clements was not a
unive rsity student and so is irrelevant to the present inquiry. lames Stirling and
John Leake have been set aside because they were both, evidently, "of the
foundation," and the refore would have fallen into a separate category, as d iscussed
in the opening paragraphs of this essay. Stirling, who went on to become a well-
know n ma thematician, was Snell Exhibi tioner and Warner Exhibitioner at Ballio!.
He was only fifteen when he matricu la ted, but, in spite of being unde r the age of
eighteen, he seems to have been threatened wi th the oath of allegia nce a t
matricu lation. In Feb. 1710/1 1, within a month of his ma tricu lation, he wrote to his
father, a Jacobite sympathizer, " I was lately matriculate, and w ith the help of my
tu tor, I escaped the oaths, but with much ado." After several yea rs in residence at
Balliol, Stirl ing appears to have been driven from the university c. Sept. 1716,
apparently on accou nt of his participation in Jacobite political disturbances. He
may, possibly, have been cha llenged to take the oa ths he had ma naged to avoid at
ma tricu lation. See Foster, AlII11/1/ i OXOII iClIses, early series, 4:1425; Charles Tweed ie,
"Life ofJames Sti rl ing, the Venetian," Ti,e Malhelllalienl Gnzette 10:147 Uuly 1920):
119-28; Hearne, 5:156, 268; 6:34-35. John Leake was a Pil ul ine Exhibitioner at Ha rt
Hall from 1699 to "1708 (Foster, Allfl/llli Oxolliellses, eil rly series, 3:895). He was
described as a Nonjuror by Hearne (7:73), bu t no t (so fa r as I can tell) until well
after he had left Hart Hall. Leake might have adopted Nonjuring views after he left
Hart Hall; or he might have arrived with Nonjuring views and somehow evaded
the oaths on miltricu lation, as Stirling seems to have done. The case of Ja mes
Stirling seems somewhat problematic for both Weinbrot and Clark. It is a problem
for Weinbrot because it suggests tha t even Nonjurors who were "of the
foundation" were sometimes able to enroll in Oxford colleges, albeit through
conniva nce, a nd wi th "much ado." It is a problem for Cla rk because it seems to be
an instance whe re university practice did not coincide with statutory guidelines,
as Clark says it genera lly d id . Stirling's career at Oxford also seems to offe r S0t11e
sup port for Wein brot's claim that evasion of university requirements WilS
widespread and tha t that "scofflaws we re common place" (A spects, p. 313). For
complexities surrounding fellow ships and scholarshi ps, see also n. 18, below.
]5. For biographical information on Samuel Parker, see Richard Sharp's DONB entry
and the biography included in the fi nal installment of the Bibliotheca Biblia, 5 vols.
(Oxford, 1720-35), 5:i-xi.
16. Parker's gestu res du ri ng the service were noted by Charles Secretan in his Memoirs
of liIe Life IIlId Till/es of Ihe Piolls I~oberl Ne/SOli (London, 1860), pp. 82-83.
17. The portrilits of James III in Pa rker's dining rOOI11 ,<"e re noted by a forei gn visitor
who happened to be a I-I anoverian spy; see Ed ward Gregg, "The Financial

Vicissitudes ofJames lIt" in TileStunr! COllrt ill Rome, ed. Edward Corp (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2003), p. 65.
18. According to And rew Mussell, Archivist at Lincoln College, the college registers
indicate that Richard Parker was admitted there on 9 Oct. 1725. Foster records his
university matricu lation two days later: Richard P<lrker, "son of Samuel, of St.
Peter's, Oxford," and "brother of Samuel Parker 1730" matriculated from Lincoln
College "11 Oct., 1725, aged 13, scholar" (Foster, A /Ill/Ill ; Oxollienses, la ter series,
3:1068). The volume that records Lincoln College battels for Nov. 1724 to Nov. 1725
is not available for inspection, but the next volume in the series, covering Nov. 1725
to Nov. 1726 is, and (per Andrew Mussell) a Pa rker appears regularly in the battels
during that period. Mussel! states that no other person with the last name Parker
was then in residence at Lincoln, and a review of Parkers in A lul1I"; O Xo/l;c/l ses,
later series, confi rms this. It seems safe, therefore, to infer that the battels recorded
are those of Sa muel Parker's son Richard (Andrew Mussell, personal
communication, 10 July 2012). There are several ind ications that Richard Parker
was the recipient of a scholarship. Foster indicates that Parker was matriculated as
a "scholar/' which would seem to be an indication of his specific undergraduate
status. Hearne says he eventually "left a scholarship" at Lincoln on account of the
oaths. Most importantly, Mussell reports that the banels at Lincoln contain " regular
notes that small sums of money were ... being paid to him, usually slightly more
than his expenses, which must represent his scholarship." This raises a question:
if Richard Parker was a scholarship student, would that not mean that he was "of
the foundation"? And would that not mean that he would have been requ ired to
subscribe the oaths of allegiance and abjuration at matriculation in accordance with
the 1702 legislation? It would certainly seem to mean that Parker was "of the
found ation." However, the Oxford records that suggest Parker was "of the
foundation" are not necessarily inconsistent with Hearne's description of him as
a Nonjuror's son 'Nho withdrew on account of the oaths. Parker might have been
able to avoid the oaths on account ofhis age. As noted above (see paragraph 3), the
parliamentary statute only requ ired these oaths of students who were eighteen at
the time of matriculation. Richard Parker may have been able to avoid this
requirement since he was only thirteen at the time of his matriculation. In general,
it must be said that the minimum ages for swearing that are stipulated in the
statutes (sixteen for general matr iculants and eighteen for those who were "of the
foundation")add additional complexity to an already complex subject. If uni versity
practice conformed to the statutes, as Clark maintains it did, then many students
who doubted the legality of the government would have been able to take
advantage of age-related loopholes to enroll at Oxford colleges-but, of course,
Weinbrot has argued that practice did not conform to the statutes.
19. Foster records no degrees for Richard Parker (A l ulIIlI ; Oxo/l;enses, later series,
3:1068). This is consistent with Hearne's account of his career. The Lincoln College
battels allow us to deduce an approximate date for his departure from the college.
According to Andrew Mussell, these volu mes for Nov.1725 to Nov. 1726 and Nov.
1726 to Nov. 1727 show regula r entries for Parker. The volu me for Nov. 1727 to
Nov. 1728 is missing. Hmvever, entries for Parke r are found in the next volume in

the series, w hich covers Nov. 1728 to Nov. 1729. This volume shows that Parker
paid fees a t regula r intervals up through June 1729. The last entry for him is dated
12 June 1729. This suggests that Parker withdraw from Lincoln College circa June
1729. He wou ld have been about seventeen yea rs old at the time. Could it be tha t
he withd rew a t this time because his eighteenth birthday was looming and, as a
scholar "of the fou ndation," he wou ld have been requ ired to take the objectionable
oaths w hen he tllrncd eighteen?
20. Hearne's accounts of Samuel Parker (1703?-1767) at 10:332-33 and 11:21-22 a re
confirmed by university records. Foster records that Samuel Pa rker, son of "Sam uel
of Holywell, Oxford" of Magdalen College was matricu lated 14 May 1730, at the
ripe old age of twenty-six (A ltllllll i OX01liellSeS, later series, 3:1068). The same entry
has him serving as a clerk at Magdalen from 1728 to 1767, but the start date is
probably a typo. I have not found any other mention of a pre-1730 uni versity
affiliation. Sa muel Parker, Sr., died on '14 July 1730 (Hearne, 10:307). In 1731,
Samuel Parker, Jr., was elected yeoman bedel. For n10re on his subsequent career,
see Hearne (11:21-22) and W. Graham, A Register of tile Presidellts, Fellows, Demies,
IlIstrllctors ill Grammar a1ld i1l M Ilsic, Chaploills, Clerks, Choristers, olld Other Members
ofSailll Mary Magda/en College ill Ihe Ulliversily ofOxford (Oxfo rd, 1857), pp. 90-91.
21. Hearne, 10:217. Hea rne makes add itiona l comments about the younger Dodwells
at 9:290; 10:202, 247; 11:55, 70, 164, 185-86, 235, 239, 473.
22. That matriculation and graduation were uni versi ty ceremonies seems clea r from
everything rhave read on the subject and from my personal communication with
several Oxford archivists, including Simon Bailey, Keeper of the Archi ves,
University of Oxford, Bodleian Library (personal com munication, 17 Jan. 2011 );
Clare Hopkins, Archi vist, Trinity College, Oxford (pe rsona lcommunication, 13Jan.
2011 ); and Andrew Mussell, A rchivist, Lincoln College (personal communication,
16 July 2012).
23. Hearne, 7:300-1; emphasis added. This key passage in Hea rne's diaries is discussed
by Cla rk in "Cultural Identity," pp. 30-32, and by Weinbrot in Aspecls, p. 315.
24. H. E. Salter, the editorof vol. 10 of Hearne's Remarks Gild Collections, agreed that the
oath of a llegiance was required a t gradu ation: 11 As everyone knew that Hearne had
taken the Oath of Allegiance, wh ich was necessary if a man was to obtain a degree,
bu t had refused the Oath of Abjuration, the letter could do him no harm; but he
was annoyed" (Hea rne, 10:v).
25. MostJohnsonians now agree that Boswell got the date ofJohnson's departure from
Pembroke College -vrong.The current" consensus seems to be that Johnson entered
Pembroke College on 31 Oct. 1728, matriculated in December (later than he was
su pposed to), and remained in residence for roughly thi rteen months, unt il mid-
December 1729. See Aleyn Lyell Reade, JO/lllsolliall Glenllill8s, 11 vols. (priva tely
printed, 1909-52), 5:45-51 and appendix H; Robert DeMaria, The Life of Samuel
J O/IIIS0n: A Crilica/ Biography (Ox ford: Blackweli, 1993), pp. 15-16; and Clark, Samuel
JO/IIIS0ll, pp. 114-16.

Davis Oxford Oath-Taking

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Davis Oxford Oath-Taking

Ähnlich wie Davis Oxford Oath-Taking (17)

Davis Oxford Oath-Taking