 | |  |
Notes
In the preparation of this paper, I've profitted from some kindnesses beyond the ordinary. Mr. John Field, the librarian at Westminster School, was unfailingly generous in giving me access to the manuscript during the end of a busy term. The Research Committee of the UCR Academic Senate provided me with funds which have underwritten the research behind the paper; these allowed me to visit Westminster School and other libraries with manuscripts related to the project. As he has done for many, A. I. Doyle has offered valuable counsel and, in moments of depression, encouragement. Sally Horrall forced me to develop the paper by commanding that I read a version of it at the Congress on Medieval Studies, Kalamazoo, 1986. Finally, my colleague Robert N. Essick and friend Jeremy J. Griffiths have read through several drafts; the paper is generally the better for their many suggestions about matters of presentation.
For descriptions, see: most extensively, Neil R. Ker, Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, Vol. I: London (1969), pp. 422-424 (a few confusions in the physical description, p. 424, seem to reflect Ker's revision of his numbering of text items); also F. G. A. M. Aarts ed., Þe Pater Noster of Richard Ermyte (1967), pp. xi-xiii (note also Aarts's frontispiece, which reproduces f. 2v of the manuscript); and Phyllis Hodgson, Deonise Hid Diuinite, EETS 231 (1955), pp. xvi-xvii.
I identify the contents by reference to the following standard bibliographical tools: P. S. Jolliffe, A Check-List of Middle English Prose Writings of Spiritual Guidance (1974); John Edwin Wells, A Manual of the Writings in Middle English 1050-1400 (1916, with nine supplements, 1919-51); the revision of Wells (hereafter "Wells Rev."): J. Burke Severs and Albert E. Hartung eds., A Manual of the Writings in Middle English 1050-1500 (1967-); Anne Hudson, "Contributions to a Bibliography of Wycliffite Writings," Notes and Queries, 218 (1973):443-453, supplements the last on Wycliffite items; R. E. Lewis, N. F. Blake, and A. S. G. Edwards, Index of Printed Middle English Prose (1985); and Rossell Hope Robbins and John L. Cutler, Supplement to the Index of Middle English Verse (1965). Titles in quotation marks are from the manuscript's rubrics; titles italicized are those given by modern editors.
The text is printed from the Simeon copy (British Library Additional 22283) by W. Nelson Francis ed., The Book of Vices and Virtues, EETS 217 (1942), pp. 316-333. For this title and a preliminary list of copies, see A. L. Kellogg and Ernest W. Talbert, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 42 (1960):365 (not superseded by a different set of categories proposed by Anthony Martin, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 64 [1981]:201-202). For some further copies, see The Index of Middle English Prose, Handlist I (1984), p. 35.
The text is printed from Harley 1022 and Bodley 938 by C. Horstman, Yorkshire Writers, 2 vols. (1895-96), I:158-161.
So far as I know, this unpublished tract is found elsewhere only in Laud Misc. 656 and Trinity College Cambridge B.14.54; I describe its rather unusual explanatory techniques below.
Several Middle English Mirror translations have been printed: see Yorkshire Writers I:219-240 (from Lincoln Cath. 91), 241-261 (from the Vernon ms.); and J. H. L. Kengen ed., Memoriale Credencium (Univ. of Nijmegen diss., n.d.), pp. 205-236. For manuscript distribution of this unpublished version, see below, n. 24.
For editions of the Rolle epistles, see Yorkshire Writers, I:3-61; and Hope Emily Allen, English Writings of Richard Rolle (1931), pp. 60-72, 81-119. Quires 28 and 29 have been reversed in binding but are marked so that the transposition is clear to the reader (A i on f. 212v matches A i at the head of quire 28, and B ii on f. 228v answers B ii at the head of quire 30).
"The 'Booklet': A Self-Contained Unit in Composite Manuscripts," Codicologica, 3 (1980):46-69; and see her important extensions of these ideas, Studies in the Age of Chaucer, 8 (1986):224. See also Hanna, "Booklets in Medieval Manuscripts: Further Considerations," Studies in Bibliography, 39 (1986):100-111.
Indeed, even greater adjustments must take place on the concluding f. 162v to finish within the quire. On that final side the writing area extends to 175 X 90+ mm., all the way to the page foot, and there are forty lines.
More, for example, could be written about scribe's 1's inks and pens. For example, ff. 1-32 are in a black ink; the shade shifts to a bright brown for ff. 32v-97. On f. 98 the ink is again black and remains so through the Benjamin minor (i.e., to f. 103v); thereafter it becomes light brown, with a few black patches until f. 136. The final portion of this scribe's text, ff. 137-80, is written in a very light brown ink. This information indicates at least that item 5, identified on other grounds as potentially filler, was not copied as a piece with preceding materials; similarly, Booklets IV and V stand out from the remainder.
For information on Middle English dialects and the provenances of the individual manuscripts discussed, I am enormously indebted to Prof. Angus McIntosh and Dr. Jeremy J. Smith for their generosity with information.
See Margaret G. Amassian and Dennis Lynch, "The Ego Dormio of Richard Rolle in Gonville and Caius MS. 140/80," Mediaeval Studies, 43 (1981): 218-249, esp. pp. 218-220.
I cite materials only from Ego Dormio, since the Westminster 3 text of Form of Living appears extensively paraphrased and thus does not provide the most useful evidence for discovering the archetype of the work. Examples of loci where the first copy of Ego Dormio in Rawlinson A 389 (R1) differs from Allen's textus acceptus include (the lineation is that of her English Writings): *1 Þai] Þe R1; *2 herken] helde þi eeren R1; *3 I] þat I haue set at þe bygynnyng of my writynge I R1; *5 wirkand] and oþer deed doynge R1; 6 es] om. R1; *10 with þe dwelle] wedde þee R1; *13 covaytes] adds, as Allen, p. 61, n. 2 R1; 16 luf] luf of R1; 21 principates potestates] trs. R1; 25 sythe] om. R1; 25 es] adds, as Allen, p. 62, n. 1 R1; *27 a sterne] þe sternys R1; 32 mykel] god mykel R1; 39 write] adds þis R1; 40 and] þat R1; 40 another] any oþer R1; 41 mastel] om. R1; *44-45 stabil . . . byrnande] stabilly luf god and brennandly R1; *46 ordaynde] adds forþe R1; 46 in heven] om. R1; 48 fra er] er R1; 53 fra al] fra R1; 54 and to be alane] and goos by þin oon R1; *55 and1] adds to haue compassyon R1; 58-59 thyng or solace] solace R1. The readings I star may well be those of Rolle's original; one might replace them with the following additional errors: 62 þis worlde and] om. R1; 64 sownes] semes and is R1; 66 and joy] om. R1; 67 in] of R1; 71 have and] om. R1; 73 wyt] wryte R1; 77 Forþi] For R1; 80 of þis worlde] om. R1; 84 layne] heele R1; 107 slakes] slake schal R1; 111 whare . . . stable] þare wa es alle þe rabel R1; 115 styfly put] styffely keped R1.
For the provenance of Rawlinson A 389, see Neil R. Ker, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain, 2nd edn. (1964), p. 115; and his "The Migration of Manuscripts from the English Medieval Libraries," Library, 4th ser. 23 (1943):1-11, esp. pp. 4-5. See also A. I. Doyle, "A Survey of the Origins and Circulation of Theological Writings in English . . .," 2 vols. (Cambridge diss., 1953), II:143-147. For Vernon and Simeon, see Doyle, "The Shaping
Of the thirty-eight R1 variants cited in n. 14, twenty appear in the same form in all copies of this recension: in the second Rawlinson text, Westminster 3, Vernon, Simeon, and Ste. Geneviève. The exceptions, most of them variants clearly derived from the R1 reading, usually involve all these copies in agreement and include: 1 Þai] Þow; 2-3 it es] I fynd; 16 lufe] þe lufe of; 27 a sterne] þe starres; 32 mykel] mykel god W, cf. god mychel serued rest; 40 and] þat RSV, and þat W; 40 another] any oþer WR, mony oþere SG, in moni oþere V; 44-45 stabil . . . byrnande] stably loue hym (om. RSGV) and (om. W) brennandly (hertly W); 46 ordaynde] add forþe RSVG; 48 fra er] om.; 53 fra al] fra WRSV; 54 and to be alane] and goos by þin self (oon W); 58-59 thyng or solace] solace be a þousand parte; 62 þis worlde and] om. WG, al RSV; 64 sownes] ben; 67 in] and; 111 whare . . . stable] ful (ful of W) wo is (it is W) þat rable; 115 styfly put] cleen kepit. Moreover, these mss. contain a number of additional common variants; a sample would include: 1 Ego . . . vigilat] om.; 4 irk to] wery of; 4-5 stondand sittand] trs.; 5 ay his] euer of; 16 ay] om.; 16 þi herte] þow art; 22 þat . . . God] om. (And þat ierarchye is next god added at sentence end SVG); 48 þeir] þat þe (þe om. W); 51 have] add here; 51 now] om.; 55 passyon] paynes; 68-69 leve . . . have] loue al þinge þat þe liste (adds to loue G) flesly lytel is þi (þe RSV) luff þat þou haste or felyst in Iesu Crist riʒt so if þou haue (om. RSV) no flesly lust no lyking in þis worldly þinge.
I simply cite samples of variants. For RSVG agreements, cf. 54 alane] by þinself (þin oon W); 57 used] brouʒt; 58 þou] euer þe; 60 lyst] lyke; 60 þe2] any; 60 myrth] lust; 62 lathe] þinke loþe; 64 al] any. Among SV variants are: 13 preche] preye; 16 heldand] bowand; 43 halyest] holliche; 46 settle] sege; 49 dowues] graunted to ben; 53 and vayne] om. RSV variants include: 53 fra al] fra; 54 wake] walk; 62 þis worlde and] al; 71 goddes loue] þe loue of god; 93 enuy or] or enuy and; 125 speke] spyand. The GW agreements occur at: 33 lufed mare] lufed hym mare; 40 and] and þat (þat RSV); 42 in] þat in; 62 þis worlde and] om.; 115 þam] þe; 186 can covete] coueityd (covete RSV); 257 swetnes] gret swetnes þerin (þ.g.s. RSV); 300 men] add and women. Some isolated readings testify to the quality of the archetype available to G, e.g. 150 ne grutchinge] ne gretynge R1G; and wepynge W; ne wepynge RSV. Appendix I below provides descriptions of Ste. Geneviève 3390 and of other manuscripts closely associated with the production of Westminster School 3.
Aarts, Pater Noster, p. xxiv; pp. 57-101 present a selected corpus of variants, 155-159 a single passage from all the manuscripts in parallel.
For Hodgson's discussion of the textual transmission of Benjamin, see EETS 231, pp. xx-xxii; group B, to which both Westminster and Arundel belong, includes nine of the twelve witnesses to the text.
I have collated fully eight manuscripts, seven which seem on the basis of contents most likely to have some relation to Westminster, and one "wild card." I cite the text of Simeon from EETS 217 (see n. 3 above) by page and line number (which I have supplied). Readings unique to Westminster and Arundel are (the variant shared by the two manuscripts follows the lemma): 320/15 þe foorme or] om.; 322/34 agree in transposing phrases; 327/3 alle] om.; 331/4 bere] add fals; 331/13 wilne ne] om. In addition, both texts agree uniquely with Royal 17A.xxvi at 324/33 worschupe] worschipyng; 326/22-23 And þei þat so don] whose doiþ; and with Ste. Geneviève 3390 at 326/1 fleo monslauhtre in alle þinges] om. with further rewriting. Royal, Westminster (with Arundel), Ste. Geneviève, and University College Oxford 97 appear genetically related, perhaps Royal and UCO most closely. My collation suggests that the printed Simeon text is probably a more adequate rendition of the original than any of these, although it includes about thirty unique and erroneous readings which a critical edition would remove. The other copies which I have collated are Laud 210 (a small fragment, beginning at 332/23) and Huntington HM 744.
An excellent introduction to the foibles of this scribe is available in Angela Barratt, The Book of Tribulation, Middle English Texts 15 (1983), esp. pp. 11-12 and 16-18. The Arundel version of this work cannot be collated with other copies; Barratt's full presentation of the text, pp. 134-143, facilitates comparison with other manuscripts of BT. See further
So also Barratt, p. 36, quoting McIntosh and Smith's collaborator, M. L. Samuels, "central Warwicks., somewhat south of Coventry."
For Laud 656, see Doyle, in David A. Lawton ed., Middle English Alliterative Poetry and its Literary Background (1982), pp. 93 and 143, n. 17; and M. L. Samuels, "Langland's Dialect," Medium AEvum, 54 (1985):239. Doyle is also responsible for the identification of Doddesham with the Trinity copy; see also his initial discussion of Doddesham's work, "A Survey," II:183.
The other full manuscripts are British Library Additional 10053 and Bodley 416. Huntington HM 502 has two extensive chunks from this work, and excerpts from those chapters which present basic instructional materials from the "Pecham program" appear in British Library Additional 60577; Harley 2398; Cambridge Univ. Library Ff.ii.38 and li.vi.43; Trinity College, Cambridge B.14.50 and R.3.21; Edinburgh Univ. Library 93; and Queen's College, Oxford 324. See Edward Wilson, The Winchester Anthology (1981), pp. 32-33.
I have not examined the Norwich ms. (described Ker, Medieval Manuscripts III [1983], p. 521). Within the group Westminster-Corpus-Bodley, WB agree in error seven times; the only other two-text variants are four examples of BX and three of SB. Only one BX variant appears potentially genetic, rather than merely coincidental error. As the description in Appendix I will suggest, the Sidney text (not in the same fascicle as the Pater Noster) came from a separate exemplar. The Westminster 3 scribes had variable access to multiple exemplars used by related codices—with Sidney and UCO 97, apparently access to the exemplar behind one booklet only; with Arundel 286 and Bodley 938, access to exemplars distributed by those other scribes among separate fascicles. See also n. 30 below.
Doyle long ago, on the basis of contents and similarities of format, suggested connections between Bodley and Westminster; see "A Survey," II:25-27. In item 8, elsewhere entitled "The Short Rule of the Life of Our Lady," Westminster agrees almost word for word with Bodley for the entire brief text. In "A tretis of weddid men," Westminster and Bodley share thirty-six erroneous readings, a total in excess of the sum of all other two-text agreements in error (Westminster and the fragmentary Cambridge Univ. Library Ii.vi.55 err together four times; Bodley and Ii, five times; Harley 2398 and Bodley, four times; Harley and Ii, four times; Westminster and Harley, twice). Corpus Christi College Cambridge 296 appears largely independent of the other copies, although it frequently (perhaps thirty times) appears to err; I have not seen this manuscript's text of "A schort reule of lyf." Among the remaining copies of this work (item 12), Bodley and Westminster agree ten times in error; Westminster and Harley 2398, twice; Bodley and Harley, three times. Laud Misc. 174 appears independent of these copies; apparently, from the sparse collations in Arnold, it agrees with Corpus in several of these independent readings.
There are thirteen manuscripts of this version of the Visitacio, of which I have fully collated seven (Westminster, UCO 97, Bodley 938, the fragment in Laud Misc. 210, Harley 2398, Royal 17A.xxvi, and Cambridge Univ. Library Nn.iv.12). There are very few agreements involving small numbers of copies: these seem to suggest that Bodley, Royal, and Westminster are genetically related (BR agree seventeen times in error, BW five times, all three seventeen times). Harley and Cambridge, UCO and Laud also seem to form distinct genetic groups, but the exact nature of transmission is rendered opaque by large and shifting numbers of erroneous agreements involving four and five manuscripts and at least ten "scattering" variants involving three manuscripts. In the brief tract on love (item 10), few erroneous agreements occur. Westminster, Laud, and Harley 2385 share four errors; within the group Laud and Harley agree in error three times, Westminster and Harley once. The only other "substantial" group of erroneous agreements (two errors) involves Laud, Harley, and Douce 246.
Bodley 938 has the full Pore Caitif, but the text is not related to that of either Westminster excerpt. This is not surprising, since codicological evidence suggests that Pore Caitif was added to Bodley at a point after use of the exemplars shared with Westminster 3. See Appendix I.
A. I. Doyle, "University College, Oxford, MS 97 and its relationship to the Simeon Manuscript (British Library Add. 22283)," in Michael Benskin and M. L. Samuels eds., So meny people longages and tonges (1981), pp. 265-282. Doyle, "A Survey," II:39-40, independently of dialect evidence, associated Laud Misc. 210 with Streynsham, Worcester.
Sometimes taken as typical of the bizarrities of this speech-form is the thoroughgoing distinction of vowels in can and can't: although the former has the normal vowel found in all American dialects, the latter has the vowel of cane. I am grateful to Linda E. Voigts for drawing this crime against the language to my attention.
See the three extensive maps in print: two for various western forms of "she," in Morton W. Bloomfield and Leonard Newmark, A Linguistic Introduction to the History of English (1963), p. 221; and in Barbara M. H. Strang, A History of English (1970), p. 420; and for forms of "church/kirk," in Charles Jones, An Introduction to Middle English (1972), pp. 212-213 and foldout opposite p. 196.
The binding stamp was identified by Ker, Medieval Manuscripts, I:424. On the Unicorn Binder, see further J. B. Oldham, English Blind-Stamped Bindings (1952), plate I, stamp 3; and G. D. Hobson, Bindings in Cambridge Libraries (1929), pp. 40-43.
See Doyle, "A Survey," II:27; and "University College," pp. 271 and 279, n. 47. The records of St. Mary at Hill have been published in EETS 125, 128; references to Close appear at pp. 30-34, 126, 142-143, 146, 170, 182, 183, 205, 207, 214, 232, 245.
| | |