 | |  |
III
Magdalene College, Cambridge MS Pepys 2006, is paginated, and contains:
-
Part 1:
- 1. Lydgate, The Complaint of the Black
Knight (IMEV 1507): pp. 1- 17
104
- 2. Lydgate, Temple of Glas (IMEV 851): pp. 17-52
- 3. Chaucer, Legend of Good Women, ends at l. 1377 (IMEV 100): pp. 53-87
- 4. Chaucer, An ABC, ends at line 59, with spurious added line following (IMEV 239): pp. 88-90
- 5. Chaucer, House of Fame, ends at line 1843 (IMEV 991): pp. 91- 114
- 6. Chaucer, Complaint of Mars (IMEV 913): pp. 115-122
- 7. Chaucer, Complaint of Venus (IMEV 3542): pp. 122-124
- 8. Chaucer, Fortune (IMEV 3661): pp. 124-126
- 9. Chaucer, Parliament of Fowls (IMEV 3412): pp. 127-142
- 10. The Three Kings of Cologne (IPMEP 290): pp. 143-189; 190 blank, with later additions[14]
- 11. Lydgate, Serpent of Division (IPMEP 835): pp. 191-209
- 12. Lydgate, Envoy to Serpent of Division (IMEV 3625): p. 209
- 13. Benedict Burgh, Parvus Cato, lines 1-50 (IMEV 3955): pp. 211- 212
- 14. Benedict Burgh, Cato Major, ends at line 360 (IMEV 854): pp. 213-224.
- 1. Lydgate, The Complaint of the Black
Knight (IMEV 1507): pp. 1- 17
-
Part 2:
- 15. Chaucer, Melibee: pp. 225-275
- 16. Chaucer, Parson's Tale: pp. 276-376
- 17. Chaucer, Retraction: p. 377
- 18. Chaucer, Complaint of Mars, lines 1-28; 57-84; 29-56 (IMEV 913): pp. 378-380
- 19. Chaucer, Complaint of Venus, begins line 45 (IMEV 3542): pp. 381-382
- 20. Chaucer, Anelida and Arcite, lines 211-289; 299-311 (IMEV 3670): pp. 382-384
- 21. Chaucer, Fortune, lines 78-79 (IMEV 3661): p. 385
- 22. Chaucer, Lenvoy de Scogan (IMEV 3747): pp. 385-386
- 23. Chaucer, An ABC, ends at line 59, with spurious added line following (IMEV 239): pp. 386-388
- 24. Chaucer, “The Complaint of Chaucer to His Purse” (IMEV 3787): pp. 388-389
- 25. Chaucer, Truth (IMEV 809): pp. 389-390
- 26. Chaucer, Merciless Beauty (IMEV 4282): pp. 390-391
- 27. A seventeenth-century collation of the MS's contents: pp. 392-394
Previous descriptions of the watermarks in Pp reflect a naiveté about the structure and appearance of watermarks in a 4o format (see also Keiser). Manly-Rickert attempt only an identification of a “Tête de Boeuf, which predominates in CT,” suggesting that it “bears some resemblance to several in Briquet (cf. 14238, 14239, 14244, dating mainly 1469-87)” (1:406). Edwards (p. xxiii) determines that two of the watermarks— Tête de boeuf —approximate “Briquet 15043” and “Briquet 15204.” For the remainder of the MS (the second part), he observes that “all the watermarks are in the gutters,” provides diagrams of three “ascenders,” and says that “[t]here are possibly additional, unidentifiable watermarks on pp. 239-40 (possibly a tête de boeuf ), 291-2 and 359-60.” McKitterick and Beadle (p. 42) echo Edwards' suggestion about the two Tête de boeuf watermarks “approximately resembling Briquet nos 15043 and 15204,” and further note “a croix (cf. Briquet nos 5590 and 5706), a five-pronged ascender, a forked ascender, and an arrow-headed ascender (for page references see Edwards, p. xxiii).” Both descriptions are
The paper stocks in Pp occur as follows:
- 1. Mount with jagged bottom edge surmounted by a Cross (Monts, unidentified), 4° (a pair of twins, one with a crossed ascender, and one on which the ascender appears to lack the horizontal elements of the cross): pp. 1-44; 73-189
- 2. Bull's head ( Tête de boeuf ), 2°, close to Briquet 15068 (1462): pp. 45-70
- 3. Bull's head ( Tête de boeuf ), 2°, nearest Briquet 15204-15206 (1440-51), but it is definitely not any of those; the watermark in Pp has two ears: pp. 193-226
- 4. Bull's head ( Tête de boeuf ), 4°, unidentified, with only the nostrils and (sometimes) the lower portion of the nose of the lower half, and a five-pronged ascender and (sometimes) the tips of horns, approximately 2.7 cm apart, of the upper half visible; similar to the second mark listed above, but with attendant chainlines 4.2 cm apart as compared with 3.8 cm apart in number two). Possibly similar to Picard Ochsenkopf VII.852; VII.564 (chainline spacing and alignment are closest to the latter) (1440-55); VII.435; VII.294 (1466-70); it is also very similar to a mark found in British Library Canterbury Tales MS Royal 17.D.XV, including the bent tip of the ascender (similar to Briquet, Tête de Boeuf, 15054 [1441-1445], with attendant chainlines 3.8 cm apart): pp. 228-290
- 5. Cart (Char), 4°, near Briquet 3544 (1433, with variants to 1473): pp. 291-390
The structure of this manuscript—really two separate manuscripts bound together—remains indeterminate in some sections. McKitterick and Beadle (pp. 42-43, with the suggested collation attributed to McKitterick) propose (“[h]aving regard to the sewing, stubs, and disposition of the texts”) the following:
I4 (pp. 1-8), II8 (pp. 9-24), III6 (pp. 25-36), IV8 (pp. 37-52), V16 (pp. 53-84), VI14 (pp. 85-112), VII16 (wants 16; the remaining stub is pasted to 15) (pp. 113-142), VIII24 (pp. 143-190), IX6 (pp. 191-202), X6 (4 and 5 pasted together) (pp. 203-212), XI6 (pp. 213-224), XII8 (pp. 225-240), XIII16 (pp. 241- 272), XIV4 (pp. 273-280), XV8 (pp. 282-296), XVI8 (pp. 297-312), XVII4 (pp. 313-320), XVIII8 (pp. 321-336), XIX4 (pp. 337-344), XX12 (pp. 345-358) [sic [15]], XXI14 (pp. 369-376), XXII8 (pp. 377-392, but pp. 377-378 and 391-392 consist of two leaves pasted together).
Edwards (pp. xxiii-xxiv) offers these “very tentative suggestions for the first part of the manuscript” (I omit the prose description of the contents and restructure the collation for more ready comparison with that of McKitterick and Beadle):
18 (pp. 1-16), 214 (pp. 17-44), 38 (pp. 45-60), 48 (pp. 61-74; “lacking 2 leaves after p. 70, one of which is supplied in a later hand”), 58 (pp. 75-90), 612 (pp. 91-112; “possibly a missing [?blank] leaf before p. 91”), 78 (pp. 113-122; “lacks 3 leaves containing end of House of Fame”), 810 (pp. 123-142), 9- 118 (pp. 143-190), 1212 (pp. 191-210; “+ 1 leaf pasted to p. 190 + 1 leaf pasted to p. 210”), 138 (pp. 211-224; “lacks 1 leaf after p. 224”)
Second part: 18 (pp. 225-240), 28 (pp. 241-256), 38 (pp. 257-272), 48 (pp. 273-288), 58 (pp. 289-304), 68 (pp. 305-320), 78 (pp. 321-336), 88 (pp. 337-352), 98 (pp. 353-368),
Neither of these collations makes specific reference to the distribution of watermarks (i.e. the symmetrical structure resulting from folding the paper 4° and 2°). While there are uncertainties, as must be the case with any hypothetical reconstruction, I believe the following best represents the structure for the first part of the MS:
Part 1: 1 24 (-1, 2) 2 14 (-14) 3 22 (-1, ±2) 4 20 (-2.19, 3.18, 20) 5 24 6 10 7 8 (-8)
Part 2: 1 16 2 16 (2 16 + χ1) 3 14 4 18 5 6 6(?)
This collation is motivated by the physical evidence and the relationship of that evidence to the distribution of texts. The sewing is through the sides, rather than through the center of bifolia, and so does not indicate the middle of gatherings (“oversewing,” rather than the more usual “flexible sewing”).[16] The first part of the MS consists of two discernible sections signaled by changes in paper stocks, textual divisions (with a blank verso at the end of the first section), and breaks between gatherings. These sections consist of: pp. 1-189 (190 is blank), with runs of two paper stocks; and pp. 191-224 (a single paper stock, distinct from those in the first section). Further, in the second section, each of the texts occupies a single gathering in the structure I propose (although the Cato text may have continued into another gathering). The second part of the MS does not contain any correspondences of text, paper stock, and quiring suggestive of booklet construction. I detail this evidence more fully in diagrammatic format below.
Pepys 2006, Part 1:
Q 1 24 (-1, 2), pp. 1-44; Mount, folded 4°:
| OUT | 1 1.43/44 | WM, upper half; CW on 44v |
| OUT | 1 2.41/42 | |
| 1/2.39/40 | ||
| WM, upper half | 3/4.37/38 | WM, lower half[17] |
| WM, lower half | 5/6.35/36 | WM, upper half |
| 7/8.33/34 | ||
| 9/10.31/34 | ||
| WM, lower half | 11/12.29/30 | WM, upper half |
| WM, upper half | 13/14.27/28 | WM, lower half |
| 15/16.25/26 | ||
| WM, lower half | 17/18.23/24 | WM, upper half |
| 19/20.21/22 |
Q 2 14 (-14), pp. 45-70; Bull's head, folded 2°:
| WM | 45/46.2 14 | OUT (blank?) |
| WM | 47/48.69/70 | (“Legend of Cleopatra” ends on p. 70) |
| 49/50.67/68 | WM | |
| (Temple of Glas ends on p. 52) | 51/52.65/66 | WM |
| (LGW begins on p. 53) WM | 53/54.63/64 | |
| WM | 55/56.61/62 | |
| 57/58.59/60 | WM |
Q 3 22 (-1 ±2), pp. 71-112; Mount, folded 4°:
| OUT | 3 1.111/112 | CW on 112v (Guard obscures gutter) |
| (LGW ll. 706-776 are missing) (LGW, ll. 777-845, added in different hand) |
“71/72”+109/110 | |
| WM, lower half | 73/74.107/108 | WM, upper half |
| 75/76.105/106 | ||
| WM, lower half | 77/78.103/104 | WM, upper half |
| WM, upper half | 79/80.101/102 | WM, lower half |
| 81/82.99/100 | ||
| WM, upper half | 83/84.97/98 | WM, lower half |
| 85/86.95/96 | ||
| 87/88.93/94 | ||
| WM, lower half | 89/90.91/92 | WM, upper half |
Q 4 20 (-2.19, 3.18, 20), pp. 113-142; Mount, folded 4°:
| (HF breaks off at l. 1843, at the foot of 114) | 113/114.4 20 | OUT (blank?) |
| (HF ll. 1843-2003?) OUT | 4 2 4 19 | OUT (blank?) |
| (HF ll. 2004-2158?) OUT | 43.418 | OUT (PF, ll. 668-669?) |
| 115/116.141.142 | (guard; PF breaks off at l. 667 | |
| WM, lower half | 117/118.139/140 | WM, upper half; guard |
| 119/120.137/138 | ||
| WM, upper half | 121/122.135/136 | WM, lower half |
| 123/124.133/134 | ||
| 125/126.131/132 | ||
| (PF begins on p. 127) | 127/128.129/130 |
Q 5 24, pp. 143-190; Mount, folded 4°:
| (Three Kings begins) | 143/144.189/190 | (two pages glued together, both 4°)[18] |
| WM, lower half | 145/146.187/188 | WM, upper half |
| 147/148.185/186 | ||
| WM, lower half | 149/150.183/184 | WM, upper half |
| 151/152.181/182 | ||
| 153/154.179/180 | ||
| 155/156.177/178 | ||
| 157/158.175/176 | ||
| 159/160.173/174 | ||
| WM, lower half | 161/162.171/172 | WM, upper half |
| WM, upper half | 163/164.169/170 | WM, lower half |
| 165/166.167/168 |
Q 6 10, pp. 191-210; Bull's head (near Briquet 15204 & 15206), folded 2°:
| (Serpent of Division begins) | 191/192.209/210 | WM (two sheets glued together) |
| 193/194.207/208 | WM | |
| 195/196.205/506 | WM | |
| WM | 197/198.203/204 | |
| WM | 199/200.201/202 |
Q 7 8 (-8), pp. 211-224; Bull's head (near Briquet 15204 & 15206), folded 2o:
| (Cato begins) | 211/212.7 8 | OUT (stub; end of Cato Major missing, 360-? | |
| 213/214.223/224 | WM | ||
| WM | 215/216.221/222 | ||
| 217/218.219/220 | WM |
The first section of Pp, containing texts by Lydgate and Chaucer (pp. 1-142, with two blank leaves left in the original structure at the end of my Q 4), appears to have employed examplars that were structured as booklets and to have emulated that structure, a fact obscured by previous attempts to collate the MS. In the remainder of Pepys Part 1, textual boundaries coincide with structural boundaries; previous collations have also failed to capture this important point.
Pepys 2006, Part 2:
In pp. 225-290, the lower portions of the 4° watermark can be very difficult to detect because they are often deeply buried in the gutters, often showing only parts of the nostrils. Between my second and third examinations of the MS, slightly over a year apart, I constructed a collation that originally had to rely on a series of hypotheses about where the lower portions of the mark should be expected. During my third examination, I was able to confirm the presence of those marks where I predicted they should be, but they are easily overlooked if one does not know what to look for and where to look.
Q1 16, pp. 225-256; “Bull's head,” folded 4°:
| 225/226.255/256 | ||
| WM, upper half | 227/228.253/254 | WM, lower half |
| WM, upper half | 229/230.251/252 | WM, lower half |
| 231/232.249 | ||
| 233/234.247/248 | ||
| WM, lower half | 235/236.245/246 | WM, upper half |
| 237/238.243/244 | ||
| WM, lower half | 239/240.241/242 |
Q 2 16 (2 16 + χ1), pp. 257-290; “Bull's head,” folded 4°:
| +289/290 | ||
| WM, upper half | 257/258.287/288 | WM, lower half |
| 263/264.281/282 | ||
| WM, upper half | 265/266.279/280 | WM, lower half |
| 267/268.277/278 | ||
| 269/270.275/276 | ||
| WM, upper half | 271/272.273/274 | WM, lower half |
Q 3 14, pp. 291-306; “Cart” (near Briquet 3544), folded 4°:
| WM, lower half | 291/292.317/318 | WM, upper half |
| WM, upper half | 293/294.315/316 | WM, lower half |
| 295/296.313/314 | ||
| WM, upper half | 297/298.311/312 | WM, lower half |
| 299/300.309/310 | ||
| WM, upper half | 301/302.307/308 | WM, lower half |
| 303/304.305/306 |
Q 4 18, pp. 310-338; “Cart” (near Briquet 3544), folded 4°:
| 319/320.353/354 | ||
| WM, lower half | 321/322.351/352 | WM, upper half |
| 323/324.349/350 | ||
| 325/326.347/348 | ||
| WM, upper half | 327/328.345/346 | WM, lower half |
| WM, lower half | 329/330.343/344 | WM, upper half |
| 331/332.341/342 | ||
| WM, upper half | 333/334.339/340 | WM, lower half |
| 335/336.337/338 |
Q 5 6, pp. 355-366; “Cart” (near Briquet 3544), folded 4°:
| WM, lower half | 355/356.365/366 | WM, upper half |
| 357/358.363/364 | ||
| WM, upper half | 359/360.361/362 | WM, lower half |
The following section has suffered several losses of text. The text of the Complaint of Mars (ll. 1-28 [p. 378], 57-84 [p. 379], and 29-56 [p. 380]) was originally copied consecutively. The folio containing pp. 379/380 has been reversed, with the lower half of the “Cart” watermark appearing at the fore-edge. Thus the entire text might once have been present and the final 214 lines of text subsequently lost, along with the first 45 lines of the Complaint of Venus. At 28 lines per page, allowing for an explicit and incipit, this would require 4.6 folios. The final 43 lines of Anelida & Arcite and the first 77 lines of Fortune are also lost; at ca. 32 lines per page in this section, another two folios can be postulated as missing. There is, however, a “vacat” in the gutter of p. 384 that appears to be written in the scribe's informal hand, and since the last line of Fortune provides a rhyme for the last line of text on p. 384 (“soueryn:atteyn”), it is entirely possible that this was the scribe's solution to a lacuna in the copy text. It is also possible that if more of the final part of the MS were extant, the postulated gathering 56 might be seen to associate with a larger structure.
Q 6?; “Cart” (near Briquet 3544), folded 4°:
| 367/368M | |
| WM, lower half | 369/370 |
| 371/372 | |
| 373/374 |
| WM, lower half (Parson's Tale ends p. 376) | 375/376 |
| (Two leaves pasted together: Complaint of Mars, pp. 378-80 | 377/378 |
| leaf reversed; WM, lower half, at fore-edge (Seymour (1995, p. 134) suggests this is the second leaf of a gathering of 12, with 3, 6, 7, 12 missing) | 379/380 |
| OUT? | |
| OUT? | |
| OUT? | |
| OUT? | |
| OUT? | |
| (Complaint of Venus, pp. 381-2) | 381/382 |
| WM, lower half (“Vacat” in the lower gutter of p. 384) | 383/384 |
| (Final 43 lines of Anelida & Arcite lost) | OUT? |
| WM, upper half | 385/386 |
| 387/388 | |
| 389/390 | |
| WM, lower half (fly leaf glued to verso) | 391 |
| | |