University of Virginia Library

I

British Library MS Arundel 140 contains:

• Part 1
  • 1. “The Legend of Ipotis” (IMEV[4] 220): fols. 1r-5r
  • 2. Mandeville's Travels (B text: IPMEP 233): fols. 5v-41r
  • 3. Prick of Conscience (East Midlands recension; IMEV 3429): fols. 41v-146v
  • 4. Speculum Gy de Warwyke (also titled Speculum Mundi and Speculum vtile istius mundi; IMEV 1101): fols. 147r-151v
  • 5. Seuyn Sages of Rome (A text; IMEV 3187): fols. 152r-165r
• Part 2
  • 6. Chaucer's Melibee (VII 967-1777/B2 *2157-*2967; missing VII 1459-1562/B2 *2650-*2752)[5]: fols. 166r- 181r

The volume consists of two structural sections, the final item having been produced independently of the rest of the MS.[6]

Manly-Rickert (1:52) describe three paper stocks: “Mont (2 or 3 varieties) and Basilique” in the first section, and “Ancre, Briquet No. 360 (1459) is perhaps nearest” in the Melibee. Seymour (1966, p. 184) concurs with Manly-Rickert's assessment of the paper stock in Melibee (folded 2°), as do I, but he suggests the first two watermarks are “unidentified, possibly ancre (ff. 1-27) and aile (ff. 28-165).” Manly-Rickert are correct here in their identification of the first watermark as a “Mount surmounted by a Cross” (“Mont”), although it is the same type throughout, occurring in a 2° format in fols. 1-20, 23-27, and 149-165. The second watermark is a Unicorn's Head in Profile ( Tête de Licorne, cf. Briquet 15803 [1406-8]) folded 2°, occurring in fols. 21.22, and 28-148.

Manly-Rickert (1:52) believe a collation of the MS to be “[i]mpossible; all leaves now mounted on modern paper. Two folios missing between 177 and 178 (B 2650-2752).” Seymour (1966, p. 184) provides the following collation for the first section:

Of the section containing Melibee, Seymour's assessment in 1966 (p. 184) was that the structure was “unknown,” but in his most recent description he states: “Perhaps 112 (lacks 1), 28 (lacks 1-2, 7- 8)” (1995, p. 137). I propose the following collation[7]:

Part 1: ॠ1-5 1 12 (-1, 12) 2-4 12 5 12 (-1, 2) 6 12 7 12 (-4) 8 12 (-5, 6) 9 12 10 12 (-1.12, 2.11) 11-13 12 14 12 (-4.9, 5.8, 6.7) 15 12 (-12; 10+१2). Part 2: 1 12 2 8 (-1.8, 2.7)

This collation differs from Seymour's analysis of Part 1 of the MS with respect to his Quires 10 and 11. Quire 10 was originally a gathering of twelve leaves, folded 2°, now lacking the outer two bifolia, and Quire 11 is a gathering of twelve.

(The following structural representations generally consist of four columns. The presentation is intended to suggest the symmetry of the gatherings' physical structures: the tops of the two center columns correspond to the inner and outer folios of the gathering and the folios at the bottom of these two columns correspond to the center bifolium. Commentary on material in the first half of a gathering is placed in the leftmost column, and commentary on material in the latter half of a gathering is placed in the rightmost column. The abbreviation “WM” denotes the half of a bifolium bearing the watermark; a period between folio numbers signifies conjugate structures [inferred where they are no longer physically joined]; the designation “OUT” is used to signify folios that can inferentially be construed as lost; “CW” abbreviates “catchword[s].” The quire numbers are inferred and thus italicized. Hereafter, “Q” abbreviates “Quire”; “Qq” abbreviates “Quires.”)

Q10 12 (-1.12, 2.11):8

         

OUT	10 1.10 12	OUT
OUT	10 2.1011	OUT
	107.114	WM
WM	108.113
WM	109.112		WM	110.111

Q11 12:

           

WM	115.126	CW on fol. 126v
WM	116.125
WM	117.124
	118.123	WM
119.122	WM
WM	120.121

The Speculum Gy de Warwyke ends on fol. 151v, at line 892 (“Do nouʒtaʒeyne his lordes wyll”), 142 lines shy of its usual conclusion. One folio (144)[8]

could have accommodated these lines (double column format, ca. 45 lines per column). Seymour's collation of Q 14 suggests that 14 4-8 are wanting; there are, however, only six folios surviving from the original gathering (fols. 149-154, with watermarks on fols. 151, 153, and 154; 154v has a catchword), and the distribution of watermarks suggests, rather, that fols. 14 4-9 are missing. If the first of the missing folios held the end of Speculum Gy de Warwyke, then the remaining (now-missing) five folios could have held the lost beginning of the Seuen Sages (figuring ca. 180 lines per folio in a double-column format, with 40-51 lines per column; the Ar text begins at what corresponds to line 951 in the text found in Egerton MS 1995).[9] The missing final folio of Q 15 would have been sufficient to hold the lines lacking at the end of Seuen Sages.

Q14 12 (-4.9, 5.8, 6.7):

           

	149.145	WM; CW on fol. 154v
	150.153	WM
WM	151.152
OUT	14 4.14 9	OUT
14 5.14 8	OUT
OUT	14 6 14 7	OUT

Q15 12 (-12; 10+χ2):[10]

           

	155.15 12	OUT
WM	156.165
	157.164	WM (+2 non-integral fragments)
WM	158.163
	159.162	WM
	160.161	WM

The structure of Part 2 is perhaps less problematic than previous analyses have contended. Sixteen folios survive, two are missing between fols. 177 and 178 (containing lines VII 1459-1562/B2 *2650-*2752), and Melibee lacks 111 lines at the end, which could have fit on two additional folios (this section of the MS is in a single-column, prose format, with ca. 35 lines per page). The first twelve folios contain a symmetrical distribution of the Anchor watermark and so can reasonably be inferred to be a gathering:

Arundel 140, Part2:
Qr13 [Seymour's 112 (lacks 1)"][11]

           

WM	166.167
	167.176	WM
	168.175	WM
	169.174	WM
	170.173	WM
	171.172	WM

If the first two folios of the following quire are missing, as well as the final two (needed for the last 111 lines of text), the original gathering must have consisted of at least eight folios. The surviving four folios are 178-181.

Q2 8 (-1.8, 2.7) [Seymour's “28 (lacks 1-2, 7-8)”]:

       

OUT	2 1.2 8	OUT
OUT	2 2.2 7	OUT
	178.181	WM
WM	179.180