A Codicological and Linguistic Study of the Voigts-Sloane Group of Middle English Manuscripts (Texts and Transitions) (Texts and Transitions, 9) [Bilingual ed.] 9782503566474, 2503566472

Citation preview

Alchemy, Medicine, and Commercial Book Production

Texts and transitions General Editors Martha Driver, Pace University, New York Derek Pearsall, University of York Editorial Board Julia Boffey, Queen Mary, University of London Ardis Butterfield, Yale University Phillipa Hardman, University of Reading Dieter Mehl, Universität Bonn Alastair Minnis, Yale University Oliver Pickering, University of Leeds John Scattergood, Trinity College Dublin John Thompson, Queen’s University Belfast

Previously published volumes in this series are listed at the back of the book.

Volume 9

Alchemy, Medicine, and Commercial Book Production A Codicological and Linguistic Study of the Voigts-Sloane Manuscript Group by

Alpo Honkapohja

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

© 2017, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2017/0095/3 ISBN 978-2-503-56647-4 e-ISBN 978-2-503-56935-2 DOI 10.1484/M.TT-EB.5.111529 Printed on acid-free paper

Contents

List of Illustrations

vii

Acknowledgements xiii Introduction 1 Chapter 1. The Book Trade in London before Printing

23

Chapter 2. Sibling Group: Manuscript Descriptions and  Assessing Evidence of Co‑ordinated Book Production

35

Chapter 3. The Core Group: Manuscript Descriptions, Booklet Construc­tion, and Evidence of Origin

65

Chapter 4. Family Resemblance

101

Chapter 5. Multilingualism

121

Chapter 6. Dialect and Dialectology

155

Appendix. Full collation of Sloane 1118

215

Works Cited

225

Index of Manuscripts

239

General Index

241

List of Illustrations

Plates Plate 1. The Twenty-Jordan Series in Boston, Collectanea medica, Boston Medical Library, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, MS Ballard 19 (fol. 16r). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Plate 2. A red manicule points towards the words ‘Et super omnia caueas coitum’ (And above all beware of sexual intercourse) in Boston, Collectanea medica, Boston Medical Library, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, MS Ballard 19 (fol. 50v). . . . 40 Plate 3. A text-organizing switch highlighted by rubrication in Boston, Collectanea medica, Boston Medical Library, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, MS Ballard 19 (fol. 49r). . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figures Figure 1. A graphic representation of the relationship between the Core Group and the Sibling Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2. A typical bifolium in the Core Group. London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118, fols 133v–134r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 3. A quire signed with the year 1462. London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948, fol. 51r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

viii

list of iLLUSTRATIONS

Figure 4. Sibling Set Text in the context of other texts in each Sibling Group manuscript. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 5. The Secretary book hand of London, British Library, MS Sloane 3566, fols 23v–24r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 6. A printed woodcut version of the Zodiac Man. London, British Library, MS Sloane 3566, fol. 117r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 7. A list of contents in London, British Library, MS Sloane, fol. 25v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Figure 8. The sixteenth-century list of contents in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118, fol. 147v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Figure 9. Booklet A in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118. . . . . . . . . . . 69 Figure 10. Booklet E in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118. . . . . . . . . 69 Figure 11. Booklet N in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118. . . . . . . . . 71 Figure 12. Booklet B in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118. . . . . . . . . 73 Figure 13. Booklet J in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118. . . . . . . . . . 73 Figure 14. Booklet F in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118. . . . . . . . . 75 Figure 15. Unit H in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118. . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Figure 16. An early modern marginal comment on London, British Library, MS 2567, fol. 7r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Figure 18. A marginal comment: ‘Secundum Kyrkeby.’ London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118, fol. 128r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Figure 17. A marginal comment: ‘Secundum Johannem Kirkeby in artibus magistrum canonice.’ London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118, fol. 36r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Figure 19. A marginal comment ‘Kirkby’ and passage which mentions John Kirkby. London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948, fol. 46r. . . . . . . . . 96

list of iLLUSTRATIONS

ix

Figure 20. Middle English and Latin alchemy. London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118, fol. 28r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Figure 21. The beginning of Practica urinarum, Sibling Set Text. London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320, fol. 4r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Figure 22. Middle English remedies. London, British Library, MS Add. 19674, fol. 8r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Figure 23. The French hand in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1313, fol. 154v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Figure 24. The middle section of London, British Library, MS Harley 1735, fol. 29r: medical treatises copied to Crophill by a professional scribe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Figure 25. The Latin and Middle English Sibling Set Texts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Figure 26. Switches with a text-organizing function and related to special terminology in London, British Library, MS Sloane 3566, fols 28v–29r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Figure 27. A flagged switch in London, British Library, MS Sloane 3566, fol. 79r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Figure 28. A flagged switch in Boston, Collectanea medica, Boston Medical Library, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, MS Ballard 19, fol. 39v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Figure 29. French, Middle English, and Latin in the Core Group. . . . . . . . . . 139 Figure 30. A Middle English heading for a Middle English recipe in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118, fol. 27v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Figure 31. Recipe headings in Middle English and Latin in London, British Library, MS Add.19674, fol. 33r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Figure 32. A Latin charm for toothache in London, British Library, MS Add.19674, fol. 11r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

x

list of iLLUSTRATIONS

Figure 33. Underlined special terminology in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948, fol. 53r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Figure 34. Underlined special terminology in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948, fol. 54r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Figure 35. The Latin co-ordinating conjunction et in a Middle English recipe in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948, fol. 56r. . . . . . . . . . . 149 Figure 36. THEM hem, THEN þan, BUT but; WHETHER wheither. . . . 183 Figure 37. GOTTEN geten; SINCE (conj. and adv.) sythyn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Figure 38. GIVE (pres.) gefe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Figure 39. AGAINST ageyne; WHEN whann. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Figure 40. EVIL evill; IF yif. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Figure 41. ARE arn; ARE bee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Figure 42. WHETHER wheithir; GIVE geve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Figure 43. AGAINST ageyn; EVIL euyl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Figure 44. An isogloss based on the major forms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Figure 45. THROUGH þorough; FIRST furste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Figure 46. DO (inf ) doo; an -iy- spelling for LIFE ‘liyf ’ liyfly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Figure 47. IF yiff; YET yitte. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Figure 48. THROUGH thurgh; WILL wylt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Figure 49. THESE theese; THESE thees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Figure 50. THEM theyme; THEM thaym. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Figure 51. THEN thenne; THAN thanne. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Figure 52. WHEN whenne. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

list of iLLUSTRATIONS

xi

Figure 53. CALLED called; cleped. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Figure 54. DO, DONE doo, doon; DOES doothe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Figure 55. FIRE fuyre; GIVE yeve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Figure 56. TWO twoo; GOES (3sg) gooth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Figure 57. MADE maad; an isogloss based on the dialectal forms in the Core Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

Tables Table 1. Contents of the Core Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 2. Contents of Booklet A in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Table 3. Contents of Booklet B in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Table 4. Contents of Booklet C in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Table 5. Contents of Booklet D in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Table 6. Contents of Booklet E in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Table 7. Contents of Booklet F in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Table 8. Contents of Booklet G in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Table 9. The collation of London, British Library, MS Sloane 2567. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

xii

list of iLLUSTRATIONS

Table 10. Contents of Booklet A in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Table 11. Contents of Booklet B in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Table 12. Codicological features of the Core Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Table 13. The illustrative forms of London English Types I–IV. . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Table 14. The word count in the Sibling Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Table 15. The word count in the Core Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Table 16. Standard forms in the Sibling Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Table 17. Dialectal forms in the Sibling Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Table 18. Standard forms in the Core Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Table 19. Forms in the Core Group that resemble present-day English. . . . . 200 Table 20. Dialectal forms in the Core Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Acknowledgements

T

he book that you are holding in your hands took nearly ten years to complete. In the Autumn of 2006, I was looking for a suitable medical manu­ script to edit in Cambridge, where my parents were living at the time, and where my father was a professor of Economics. I was hoping I could stay at my parents’ place, while doing the archival work. The plan may have been good, but fell through, as my folks moved back to Finland the following year. I ended up staying in cheap hotels and B&Bs, broadening the topic from the edition of a single manu­script to a study of the whole group, changing countries from Finland to Switzerland, and universities from Helsinki to Zurich; teaching English-asa-second language to Finnish MBA students, nurses, and car mechanics, teaching Old and Middle English to Swiss undergrads, receiving grants, not receiving grants. Looking back, it all feels like quite a journey and it will be difficult for me to mention all the people whose help I have benefited from. I will try my best. One person above all deserves my gratitude: Olga Timofeeva. I originally knew her as a fellow MA and PhD student in Helsinki, but when she received a welldeserved professorship at the University of Zurich she became my boss and main PhD supervisor. Olga is strict as a supervisor, but relaxed and pragmatic as a boss, which is a great combination. I would like to give her my most sincere and heartfelt thanks for everything over the years. My second supervisor in Zurich was the amazing Carmen Cardelle de Hartmann, professor of medieval Latin with a specific interest in manu­scripts. My first contact with Carmen was through an e-mail exchange with her when she was in the British Library working on an edition of Petrus Abelard. Even though she had her own project to work on, Carmen took some time off to look at Sloane 2320 and 3566 in the library, in order to be able to discuss them better with me. The third person I would like to thank is Linda Voigts. Undertaking a detailed study of ‘her group’ meant that I was standing the shoulders of a giant,

xiv

Acknowledgements

not entirely comfortably, while talking to the giant – criticising some aspects of her scholarship, and at the same time completely indebted to it. Fortunately, Linda has taken my criticism and clarifications very gracefully, saying that it is how science works. She was also kind enough to read through my book and offer comments on it. I regret only that I was not able to take all of her suggestions into account, as the reader’s reports from the Editorial Board requested a different direction. Others who have supervised my work include Irma Taavitsainen and Päivi Pahta, who both introduced me to medieval medicine, Matti Peikola, for his codicological scrutiny of my Licentiate thesis in 2011, and Leena KahlasTarkka, for introducing me to Middle English and supplying me with Moomin coffee in Switzerland. Over the years, I have also received valuable feedback from Peter Murray Jones, Lea T. Olson, Charles Burnett, Lori Jones, Kari Anne Rand, Katherine Hindley, Herbert Schendl, Philip Durkin and Peter Grund. Special thanks should go to Monica Green and her MEDMED mailing list. A significant part of the current study was carried out in libraries. I would especially like to thank Sandy Paul at the Wren Library at Trinity College Cambridge and Jack Eckert in Boston for help over the years. For image rights, I would like to thank the Boston Medical Library in the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine and the Board of the British Library, as well as the Angus McIntosh Centre for Historical Linguistics and the Ordnance Survey for allowing me to reproduce the dot maps. I would also like to thank Guy Carney at Brepols, and Martha Driver and Derek Pearsall as the general editors of the Texts and Transitions series, and also Philip Line and Sara Norja for the language check. At various stages, the project received funding from Finnish Cultural Foundation (Suomen kulttuurirahasto), the University of Helsinki, and the Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change (VARIENG). In Helsinki, I shared an office with the following gentleman and two ladies: Turo Vartiainen, Ulla Paatola, and Carla Suhr. Two Helsinki colleagues had a considerable influence on my approaches to manu­scripts: Samuli Kaislaniemi and Ville Marttila. Other Helsinki colleagues I would like to thank include Anneli Meurman-Solin, Anu Lehto, Arja Nurmi, Heli Tissari, Joe McVeigh, Jukka Tyrkkö, Maija Stenvall, Marianna Hintikka, Matti Kilpiö, Matti Rissanen, Maura Ratia, Mikko Hakala, Mikko Laitinen, Minna Korhonen, Minna Nevala, Minna Palander-Collin, Raisa Oinonen, Rod McConchie, Tanja Säily, Teo Juvonen, Terttu Nevalainen, and Turo Hiltunen. Moving to Zurich, I found myself in an even smaller office, but with more shelf space and a huge balcony with impressive view over the hillside. My office mate for most of the period has been Anne Gardner, who is a very friendly

Acknowledgements

xv

and helpful colleague, with a serious interest in old languages and historical linguistics. I also shared the office for one term with Jonas Keller with whom we had interesting discussions on various matters. From the very well organised English department of Zurich, I would also like to thank people involved with the History of the English language module, especially my two fellow coordinators Annina Seiler-Rübekeil and Magdalena Leitner, as well as Dieter Studer and Nicole Studer-Joho, Daniela Landert and Marianne Hundt. I’d also like to thank Martin Mühlheim, who very kindly read and commented on my introduction. In addition, I would like to thank my oldest and best friends Johannes Lounasheimo, Riku Partanen, Jussi Moilanen and Pauli Parmanne, who have been there through all my life. In Zurich, I would like to thank the friends who took interest in my academic work. These are Max Meindhart and Agnieszka Czupryc, who read my whole PhD, as well as Elena Berner who, out of interest, sneaked into a couple of my classes to learn about Old English. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Seppo and Sirkku Honkapohja, for believing me for all these years, and for support, including academic – I am indebted to you in so many ways. Special thanks also go to my sister Aino Honkapohja-Kuusisto, her husband Tapio Kuusisto, and their three small boys, Anssi, Oskari and Eero, who always seem to have grown and entered a different phase every time I visit Finland. I can only wish I had more time to see them.

Introduction

P

rinting by movable type was introduced to Europe by Johannes Guten­ berg, whose first printing press was operational in Mainz by 1448–50. The invention was brought to England by William Caxton, who opened a printing press in Westminster in 1475–76. These two prescient merchants did not introduce their new method of making books into a cultural vacuum but rather into an existing commercial book market created by an increase in wealth and literacy among the middle classes and facilitated by cheaper methods of production. Many aspects of the book trade displayed continuity rather than abrupt change and revolution.1 Like manu­scripts, printed books had to be bound, distributed, and sold. They made use of the same paper stock. Early printers depended on existing networks and the skills and expertise of various book artisans, including stationers, limners, and binders. Moreover, printers were, in the early days, dependent on manu­script exemplars.2 An interesting question is, to what extent did commercial book makers use methods of making the production of manu­script books faster and easier before printing? One example of such methods is that several scribes seem occasionally to have been employed to work simultaneously, as some of the surviving codices were split between several copyists, presumably to get them ready faster. Another example is that booksellers may have sold unbound booklets, which could be combined into codices according to the requirements of the customer — resembling the sales of early printed books. Perhaps most interestingly, it has been suggested that stationers or scriptoria could have copied manu­script books in certain genres that were in high demand for speculative sale without a specific commission. All of these ways of facilitating the production of manu­ 1  2 

Meale, ‘Patrons, Buyers and Owners’. See, e.g., König, ‘The Influence of the Invention of Printing’.

Introduction

2

script books leave traces, which make it possible to reconstruct their origin by a careful codicological analysis. One group of manu­scripts for which an origin in speculative production has been suggested is the Voigts-Sloane Group of Middle English manu­scripts.3 The Group has been identified by Linda Voigts and consists of eleven Latin and Middle English manu­scripts with ‘striking physical similarity’, characterized by an almost identical mise-en-page and a recurring anthology of texts. Most of these manu­scripts date from the 1450s and 1460s, after the introduction of the printing press on the continent but before Caxton had founded one in England. One of the Group manu­scripts— Boston, Collectanea medica, Boston Medical Library, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, MS Ballard 19 (Boston MS 19)—has been localized in Westminster, the place where Caxton started his workshop, and identified as being written in the hand of the freelance scribe William Ebesham and commissioned by John Paston (II). The Voigts-Sloane Group has attracted the attention of modern scholars for two reasons. The first is the notion, introduced by Voigts at the end of her paper ‘The “Sloane Group’”, that they may be evidence of co-ordination in the production of medical manu­scripts before printing. The second reason is that they are all multilingual manu­scripts, in which English and Latin texts exist side by side, copied in the latter half of the fifteenth century, when a considerable range of medical books was available in vernacular translation. For exam3 

Voigts addresses the Sloane Group in several articles. The most thorough description of it is given in ‘The “Sloane Group”’. In addition, she refers to the Sloane Group in three other articles. ‘Scientific and Medical Books’ is a survey of scientific and medical manu­ scripts produced in England between 1375 and 1500, based on a representative sample from Dorothea Waley Singer’s catalogue. The Sloane Group occupies a fairly central position in the article. First, she uses Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.1.77 as an example to illustrate the contents of a typical medical and scientific manu­script along with two others. Second, she also comments on the Sloane Group, mentioning both the Sibling and Core manu­scripts as evidence ‘of scribal or workshop specialisation […]. The salient features of both groups lead to a conclusion that medical and scientific “publishing” could be found in the handwritten book in England in the half-century before Caxton’ (p. 384). ‘What’s the Word?’ is a more detailed study of multilingualism in the manu­scripts surveyed in ‘Scientific and Medical Books’ and in the compilation of the electronic Voigts and Kurtz database. Finally, she returned to the Group in her article ‘The Master of the King’s Stillatories’, which is mainly on Robert Broke, who was a master of the King’s Distillatories in the service of Henry VI (r. 1422–61). Voigts discusses the possibility that the Sloane Core manu­scripts could have been connected with Broke, as many of them contain instructions for distilling alcohol-based medicaments. The article also contains a transcription (on p. 250) of a Middle English recipe on how to make aqua vita perfectissime found in the Core Group manu­script London, British Library, Additional 19674, fols 27v–28.

Introduction

3

ple, Monica Green illustrates both when she, in an article on women’s literacy, mentions the Group as being part of a: veritable mass production of volumes of medical and scientific texts that employed English and Latin on an essentially equal basis, suggesting that despite the welldocumented explosion of vernacular medical writing in England […] bilingual […], not monolingual, readers continued to be the targeted audience of most medical books.4

Claire Jones relies on similar assumptions when she relates the contents of three groups of medical manu­scripts, one of which is the Voigts-Sloane Group, to the linguistic model of discourse communities.5 Jones follows Voigts in her description, noting that the uniformity of the Sloane Group manu­scripts points to book production in Westminster rather than a medical discourse community.6 She concludes that more work is needed on the production circumstances of all groups: Until more detailed examinations about manu­script groups such as those discussed in this study have been done, our conclusions must remain speculative. […] More information about the relationship between these clusters and discourse communities can be gained through the LALME method and related dialect studies, and ongoing research into production and ownership of manu­scripts.7

The two quotes above illustrate how these manu­scripts are referred to as instances of commercially co-ordinated book production, even though neither their production circumstances nor their language have been comprehensively described. The purpose of the current monograph is to do precisely what Jones suggests: to examine the Group using detailed codicological analysis as well as a linguistic analysis of its dialect and multilingualism. If the Group’s manu­scripts 4  Green, ‘The Possibilities of Literacy’ p. 39. With respect to the Boston manu­script, she wonders whether the Paston women would have ‘had the skills in logical and dialectic mathematics to absorb and assimilate the technical explanations of the “hidden” causes of disease or the calculation of the positions of the moon in the different houses’ (p. 38). 5  Jones, ‘Discourse Communities and Medical Texts’, p. 24. Discourse community is an extension of the sociolinguistic concept of ‘speech community’ to the written dimension. 6  Jones, ‘Discourse Communities and Medical Texts’, p. 33. She also discussed two other groups of medical manu­scripts located in the area of East Anglia and Lincolnshire (pp. 33–34). Her study combines knowledge of manu­s cript provenance based on codicological and dialectological studies and modern sociolinguistic theory. 7  Jones, ‘Discourse Communities and Medical Texts’, p. 35.

Introduction

4

represent systematic production of medical and scientific manu­scripts, how exactly were they copied? What was their intended audience? Does their dialect support their localization in London? Are English and Latin used in them on an equal basis, and if so why? The book is laid out in six chapters. The Introduction presents the Group, and a division between the Core Group, which share a similar mise-en-page, and Sibling Group manu­scripts, which share an anthology of recurring texts but are less unified in physical appearance. It also introduces the set texts found in the Sibling manu­scripts, a group of treatises that appears in standard order, and places them in the context of fifteenth-century medicine. Moreover, it presents the evidence that connects these manu­scripts to London, and the connection of Boston MS 19 to William Ebesham and the Paston letters. The first chapter begins with an account of the commercial book market in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century England. Chapters 2, 3, and 4, respectively, contain detailed codicological analyses of the Sibling Group, the Core Group, and less closely related manu­scripts that exhibit a ‘family resemblance’. Physical features of the manu­scripts are compared to the checklists given in the previous chapter and placed within the context of the medical and alchemical concerns of the day. The final two chapters contain the linguistic part of the analysis. Chapter 5 looks into the multilingualism of the Group by analysing the different functions for which Latin and Middle English are used in the manu­scripts. Chapter 6 includes an analysis of the dialect of Sloane Sibling and Sloane Core manu­ scripts. The methodology involves using the Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English (LALME) and the so-called ‘fit’ technique. It yields very interesting and surprising results for the Core Group, as all the Middle English texts are copied in a unified dialect which differs from previous accounts of London dialects. These findings are presented in Chapter 6. Curiously, a number of Voigts-Sloane manu­scripts have received attention for another reason, which is not fully compatible with the assumption of an origin in commercial production of medical manu­scripts.8 Two codices, 8 

John Kirkby is discussed by Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, pp.  34–36; Pereira, The Alchemical Corpus Attributed to Raymond Lull; Pereira, ‘Mater medicinarum’; Pereira, ‘Alchemy and the Use of Vernacular Languages’. Pereira’s main interest is in the large number of alchemical texts (falsely) attributed to Ramón Llull. The reason for this is the colophon by John Kirkby in Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 244, which is the earliest witness of the Pseudo-Llullian Testamentum translated into vernacular Catalan. Pereira’s ‘Mater medicinarum’ is a study of English manu­scripts dealing with pharmacological alchemy and the search for an elixir to prolong life. It contains a detailed discussion of the petition of alchemists in 1456 (pp. 26–27, 35).

Introduction

5

London, British Library, MSS Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2948, contain alchemical texts that mention the name John Kirkby, who was granted a special licence by Henry VI to practise alchemy, which was otherwise illegal in fifteenth-century England. The appearance of alchemical texts is at odds with the assumption about an origin in commercial copying, since manu­scripts in an illegal occult discipline can hardly be conceived as being sold openly in bookshops in Westminster or near St Paul’s. John Kirkby, alchemy, and my interpretation, which I think can explain the appearance of alchemical texts in these manu­ scripts, are discussed in Chapter 3. However, the main emphasis of the current monograph is on commercial book production and detailed codicological and linguistic analyses of these manu­scripts. In order to proceed with these matters, we need a definition of what constitutes a Voigts-Sloane manu­script.

What is the Voigts-Sloane Group? The Voigts-Sloane Group, as described by Linda Voigts, consists of medical and alchemical manu­scripts, many of which are in the British Library in the collection originally amassed by the physician, bibliophile, and collector Sir Hans Sloane (1660–1753).9 Voigts identifies eleven manu­scripts as constituents of the group, some of which share a strikingly similar visual layout, characterized by large margins and limited writing space; some contain a standard anthology of medical texts. Voigts proposes that these manu­scripts hint at more co-ordination and uniformity in the production of scientific manu­scripts than had been previously noted. Her conclusion and the starting point of the present study is: Although important recent studies suggest that it may be inappropriate to think in terms of workshop production of fifteenth-century English manu­scripts, it seems reasonable to think in terms of a ‘publisher’. In the case of the Sloane Group, it appears that an individual or a group co-ordinated and exercised control over the subject matter and presentation of these books. Such a publisher, who seems to have specialized in scientific and medical books in the 1450s and 1460s, must have been responsible for the uniformity of the Sloane Group […]. In fine, it appears that there must have been in London or Westminster in the mid-fifteenth century one or more individuals responsible for the production of a specific kind of manu­ script, uniform in appearance and scientific and medical in subject matter.10 9  Voigts calls these manu­scripts ‘The Sloane Group of Middle English manu­scripts’. To avoid confusion with other manu­scripts in the Sloane collection, which comprises some fifty thousand books, prints, and manu­scripts, I use the term ‘Voigts-Sloane Group’. 10  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 37.

Introduction

6

Figure 1. A graphic representation of the relationship between the Core Group and the Sibling Group.

Voigts’s description and definition of the Group mentions two subgroups: six codices in the British Library containing leaves with ‘striking physical similarity’, which she calls the ‘core’ of the group, and six manu­scripts which share a number of texts and illustrations but are less unified in terms of their physical appearance.11 One manu­script, Sloane 2320, is the key to the identification, as it contains the standard texts and illustrations copied in the characteristic miseen-page of the ‘core’ group. Sloane 2320 can consequently be discussed as a part of either of the groups. Figure 1 illustrates how these manu­scripts are related to each other. The manu­s cripts in the Core Group are Sloane 1118 (London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118), Sloane 1313 (British Library, MS Sloane 1313), Sloane 2320 (British Library, MS Sloane 2320), Sloane 2567 (British Library, MS Sloane 2567), Sloane 2948 (British Library, MS Sloane 2948) and Add. 19674 (British Library, MS Additional 19674). They contain very little textual overlap but are united by codicological similarities and a shared subject matter (medicine, astrology, alchemy, and magic). In three of these manu­scripts — Sloane 1118, Sloane 2320, and Add. 19674 — the section with characteristic physical similarities is several quires in length. Three others — Sloane 1313, Sloane 2567, and Sloane 2948 — contain one or two quires which can be identified as being part of the group. 11 

Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 28.

Introduction

7

The second subgroup, which I will refer to as the Sibling Group, consists of five more manu­scripts which share a ‘set text’ of medical and astrological treatises. I will refer to these as the Sibling Set Texts.12 Manu­scripts in the Sibling Group include the quarto-sized Core Group manu­script Sloane 2320; three smaller ‘half-sisters, or at least cousins’, Trinity O.1.77 (Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.1.77), Boston 19 (Boston, Collectanea medica, Boston Medical Library, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, MS Ballard 19), and Sloane 3566 (London, British Library, MS Sloane 3566), all of which are small portable manu­scripts, Sloane 3566 being the smallest of them; and two luxuriously decorated post-Caxton codices (1480s–90s), Takamiya 33 (Tokyo, Takamiya Collection, MS 33, Secretum Secretorum, and other tracts) and Gonville and Caius 336/725 (Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 336/725), which Voigts christens ‘the second generation of a family that has grown prosperous’.13 When I discuss these separately, I call them the Second Generation. In addition, there are a number of manu­s cripts that cannot be said to belong to either group but display some resemblance, such as having a mise-enpage that resembles the Core Group, containing a couple of individual leaves as fragments at the end of another manu­script, or sharing an individual text. Voigts, very aptly, treats them under the label ‘some family resemblance’.14 She describes three manu­scripts under this label. The first one is British Library, MS  Add.  5467, a thick and miscellaneous codex which contains a section (fols 195–204) that resembles the Core Group by layout and hands. The second one is London, Wellcome Library, MS 784, which contains a text also found in the Sibling Group.15 The third manu­script is Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson C.815, which contains a fragment of two leaves that have been added at the end of a different manu­script. In addition to these three manu­ scripts discussed by Voigts, I include two others in the Family Resemblance category. The first one is a large volume of works attributed to Roger Bacon in Oxford (Bodleian Library, MS e Musaeo 155), which Voigts notes in a footnote may be relevant for the group.16 The second is the section in John Crophill’s 12 

Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 31, calls these the ‘core’ texts of the group. However, as these are found in the Sibling Group rather than the Core Group, I find it more convenient to refer to them as the Sibling Texts to avoid confusion. 13  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 27. 14  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 27. 15  The text is the epistolic version of John of Burgundy’s plague treatise. 16  This manu­script was brought to her attention by Malcolm B. Parkes when she had almost completed her original article (Linda Voigts, personal communication, February 2013).

Introduction

8

Figure 2. A typical bifolium in the Core Group. London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118, fols 133v–134r. © The British Library Board.

commonplace book, which is an anthology of medical texts copied for Crophill by a professional scribe in Norfolk.17 The mise-en-page of this section resembles the Core Group, even though the measurements are somewhat different.18

The Core Group and Codicological Similarities As mentioned, the Core Group consists of six quarto-sized codices, all of which are in the British Library. The Group can be defined by codicological similarities. The single best way of recognizing these manu­scripts is the combination of 17 

See Ayoub, ‘John Crophill’s Books’. I discussed my identification with Voigts, who agrees with it; personal communication, February 2013. 18 

Introduction

9

Table 1. Contents of the Core Group.

alchemy

Sloane 2948

alchemy

herbals

Add. 19674

MEDICAL RECEIPT. ETC.

TRACTATUS MEDICINAE. BRITISH LIBRARY. SLOANE MS 2320 medicine, magic, ageing

Sloane 2567

85. VIRTUTES HERBARUM ETC. BRIT. MUS. SLOANE MS 2948. E.20. BIBLIOTHECA MANUSCRIPT. SLOANEIANA

alchemy, magic

Sloane 2320

97. ALCHYMICAL TRACTS. MUS. BRIT. BL. SLOAN. 2567. PLUT. XCVIII.II. B.17.

Contents

Sloane 1313

MEDICAL COLLECTIONS. BRIT. MUS. SLOANE 1313.

Spine

Sloane 1118

88. TREATISES ON ALCHEMY, ETC. BRIT. MUS. SLOANE MS 1118.

Manu­script

medicine, some alchemy

wide margins, small writing area and very compressed Secretary hand(s), which creates a highly distinctive mise-en-page (see Figure 2). The writing frame varies between 120–30 (in one instance 143) × 72–95 mm. The writing support is nearly always paper, but some codices also contain individual parchment leaves. Gatherings are typically quired in tens, but there are both shorter and longer quires. Decoration is rare: some manu­scripts contain spaces for decorated initials, but the initials are rarely supplied. In appearance, these are very utilitarian and plain-looking paper manu­scripts. The Core Group contains very few overlapping texts, although Sloane 2320 shares Sibling Texts with the Sibling Group, and Sloane 1118 contains two versions of a treatise ostensibly by Arnald of Villanova, and two ostensibly by Roger Bacon. They do, however, have shared subject matter, as all are collections of medical, alchemical, astrological, and magical texts (see Table 1).

Introduction

10

All of the manu­scripts are in modern British Library covers bound together with quires on a similar subject matter, including some which are not in the Core Group mise-en-page. As none of the Group manu­scripts is in an original binding, it is possible that these groupings are post-medieval, and that at least some of the manu­scripts were organized differently or consisted of unbound booklets in the late fifteenth century, when they were copied.

The Sibling Group and their Shared Medical Anthology The Sibling Group codices are more varied in their physical appearance. They are copied in formata- or media-grade late fifteenth-century hands, with a mixture of Secretary and Anglicana letter forms.19 The manu­scripts are more decorated than the Core manu­scripts. Apart from the two Second Generation manu­scripts, which are de luxe codices, the three pocket-sized books — Boston 19, Sloane 3566, and Trinity O.1.77 — also have decorations in red and blue. The three quires in Sloane 2320 which contain the Sibling Texts stand out from other Core Group manu­scripts by being more decorated. The Sibling Group is defined by the Sibling Set Texts contained in them, an anthology of twelve treatises that appear in almost identical order in all of the manu­scripts, followed by astrological tables as an aid for making diagnoses. The anthology includes the following texts as well as astrological tables 20 for making diagnoses based on the position of the moon in the zodiac: 1. Manipulus medicine de digestivis et laxativis21 2. Practica urinarum22 3. Twenty-Jordan Series23 19 

I use terminology based on Parkes, English Cursive Book Hands, and Roberts, Guide to Scripts. Sloane 2320, fols 21–24; Boston MS 19, fols 60r–63v; Sloane 3566, fols 118r–126r; Trinity O.1.77, fols 96r–101v. 21  eTK number: 0982F; eTK title: Manipulus medicinae de digestivis et laxativis. Incipit: ‘Omne enim corpus humanum’; Sloane 2320, fols 1r–3v; Boston MS 19, fols 1r–13v; Sloane 3566, fols 1r–24v; Trinity O.1.77, fols 1r–20v; Gonville and Caius 336/725, fols 132v–136r. 22  eVK number: 3229.00; eVK title: Practica urinarum. Incipit: ‘It is to understand whoso will look on urine him behooveth to consider three’; Sloane 2320, fol. 4r; Boston 19, fols 14r–15v; Sloane 3566, fols 24–28v; Trinity O.1.77, fols 21–24v; Gonville and Caius 336/725, fols 136v–137r; Takamiya 33, fols 34v–37. The text is edited in Harley, ‘The Middle English Contents’, pp. 171–88. 23  eVK number: 4401.00; eVK title: Practica urinarum. Incipit: ‘Rubea: a fever through chafing of the liver beginning of a dropsy a morphew’; Sloane 2320, fols 4v–9r; Boston 19, fols 16r–19r; Sloane 3566, fols 28v–33r; Trinity O.1.77, fols 24v–27r; Gonville and Caius 20 

Introduction

11

4. Expositiones colorum urinarum in ordine24 5. Aqua mirabilis et preciosa25 6. De regimine sanitatis26 7. De mirabilibus aquae ardentis rectificate27 8. John of Burgundy: plague treatise (long version)28 9. John of Burgundy: plague treatise (English)29 10. John of Burgundy: plague treatise (epistolary version)30 11. De condicionibus septem planetarum31 12. De signis sumptis per lunam in quo signo zodiaci sit32 336/725, fols  137v–139r. The text is edited in Harley, ‘The Middle English Contents’, pp. 171–88, and Tavormina, ‘The Twenty-Jordan Series’. 24  eTK number: 235B; eTK title: Expositiones colorum urinarum in ordine. Incipit: ‘Color Rubeus est quasi flamma ignis’; Sloane 2320, fol. 10r; Boston 19, fols 19v–20r; Sloane 3566, fols 34r–35r; Trinity O.1.77, fol. 30r–v; Gonville and Caius 336/725, fol. 139v. 25  eTK number: 1325B; eTK title: Aqua mirabilis et preciosa. Incipit: ‘Recipe galanga gariof ’; Sloane 2320, fol. 10r–v; Boston 19, fols 20r–22r; Sloane 3566, fols 35r–38r; Trinity O.1.77, fols 50v–53v; Gonville and Caius 336/725, fols 139v–140r. 26  eTK number: 135M; eTK title: De regimine sanitatis. Incipit: ‘Aristoteles autem scribens Alexandro Magno ait’; Sloane 2320, fols 10v–13r; Boston 19, fols 22r–31v; Sloane 3566, fols 38r–60r; Trinity O.1.77, fols 31r–48r; Gonville and Caius 336/725, fols 140r–143v. 27  eTK number: 0007K; eTK title: De mirabilibus aquae ardentis rectificate. Incipit: ‘Ab origine mundi universa naturaliter’; Sloane 2320, fol. 13r–v; Boston 19, fols 32r–33r; Sloane 3566, fols 60r–63v; Trinity O.1.77, fols 48r–50v; Gonville and Caius 336/725, fols 143v–144r. 28  eTK number: 0488P; eTK title: John of Burgundy. Incipit: ‘Ego Iohannes de Burgundia divino auxilio invocato’; Sloane 2320, fols 13v–16r; Boston 19, fols 33v–43r; Sloane 3566, fols 63v–88r; Trinity O.1.77, fols 53v–73v; Gonville and Caius 336/725, fols 144r–148r. 29  eVK number: 2177.00; eVK title: John of Burgundy. Incipit: ‘Here beginneth a noble treatise’; Sloane 2320, fols 16r–17v; Boston 19, fols 43r–49r; Sloane 3566, fols 88r–101v; Trinity O.1.77, fols 73v–83v; Gonville and Caius 336/725, fols 148v–150v. 30  eTK number: 431K; eTK title: prol. Incipit: ‘Dilectissime frater ut intellexi multum times’; Sloane 2320, fols 17v–18v; Boston 19, fols 49v–54r; Sloane 3566, fols 101v–112v; Trinity O.1.77, fols 83v–92v; Gonville and Caius 336/725, fols 151r–153r. 31  eTK number: 0080Q; Sloane 2320, fol. 19r; Boston 19, fols 54v–55v; Sloane 3566, fols 112v–115r; Trinity O.1.77, fols 92r–94r. 32  eTK number: 80Q; eTK title: De signis sumptis per lunam. Incipit: ‘Alia enim bona et vitalis est prognosticatio’; Sloane 2320, fol. 20r–v; Boston 19, fols 56v–59r; Sloane 3566, fols 116r–117v; Trinity O.1.77, fols 94r–95v.

Introduction

12

The first item in the anthology is a Latin treatise on laxative and purgative remedies called Manipulus medicine de digestivis et laxativis (1), which is unique to the Sibling Group.33 The treatise begins with a short theoretical part, which explains how an excess of one of the four bodily humours can affect the body and how three of them, an excess of choler, melancholy, or phlegm, can be treated by purgative or laxative medicaments. The theoretical part is followed by a description of the symptoms by which an excess of each of the humours can diagnosed, such as the colour of the patient’s skin or urine, and instructions for administering the correct amount of medicine, as well as an account of factors that can affect the treatment, including the time of day or year, the sex of the patient, or the direction from which the wind is coming. The final part of the treatise contains a number of recipes for making laxative and purgative remedies and instructions for using them. After the treatise on laxative and purgative remedies, all of the manu­scripts contain a section of three uroscopic texts, consisting of two in Middle English and one in Latin, which appear in a standard order. The first one (2) is a short treatise in Middle English, known as Practica urinarum, which gives instructions on examining the urine of the patient and things to take into consideration, such as the age of the patient, how long he has suffered from the sickness, and what time it first took hold. The text functions as an introduction to the following text (3), the Twenty-Jordan Series, a widely circulated treatise, which survives in more than fifty manu­scripts, and has been described and edited by M. Teresa Tavormina.34 The final uroscopic text (4) is a short Latin piece which briefly summarizes the different colours and properties of urine, comparing their colour and consistency to something that makes them easy to remember. For example, the colour rubeus is like ‘a flame of a fire’ flamma ignis; the colour citrinus ‘the colour of a lemon’, color pomi citrini; and karapos always thick ‘like 33 

The treatise is one of the works specific to the Sloane Sibling Group. Its incipit, ‘Omne enim corpus humanum’, can, according to eTK, be found in five manu­scripts: Sloane 3566, Boston 19, Gonville and Caius 336/725, Trinity O.1.77, and Sloane 2320. The eTK does not list Takamiya 33, but this manu­script can be added to the list. 34  Tavormina, ‘The Twenty-Jordan Series’. Tavormina divides various versions of the treatise into subgroups based on the order the jordans are depicted in and the additional information they include. According to her, the Sibling Group forms a subgroup of its own, which she calls the Rubea Group. Its parts are also distinguished from the others by the close connection with the previous text Practica urinarum, which is only known from the Sibling Group. The information in the Twenty-Jordan Series is ultimately based on the Latin treatise by Giles of Corbeil, Liber de urinis, and derived from university-based medicine.

Introduction

13

the skin of camel’, ut vellus cameli — one is left wondering how familiar medical practitioners in England were with camels.35 The uroscopic section is followed by three recipes. The first one gives instructions for making an alcohol-based medicament by adding one pint of repeatedly distilled alcohol known as the aqua ardens, three pints of white wine, and various herbs in an alembic vessel.36 The text lists the various health benefits of the resulting liquid in a long efficacy phrase, which makes it clear that the product is for a medical purpose, and contains instructions for administering the treatment. The second recipe also uses aqua ardens as its base and gives instructions for further distillation by adding herbs. The resulting substance will, it assures us, augment natural properties of the human body and preserve youthful appearance. The third recipe is for making a powder called pulvis Walteri, which will help against flatulence (ventositas) in men and women of all ages. The next text (6) is a regimen of health beginning with a letter from Aristotle to Alexander the Great.37 The treatise gives instructions on how to take care of the health of the mind and body in order to live a long and healthy life.38 This includes sleeping well, exercising regularly, not eating or drinking to excess, and maintaining the balance of the four humours with the right medications. The treatise also includes an anecdote of a king who asked for advice from three doctors of medicine, a Jew, a Greek, and a Persian, and received the best advice from the Greek. The last part of the treatise gives more detailed instructions on what kinds of foods and drinks are suitable for different complexions, and at which time of the day and year.

35 

The eTK lists its incipit ‘Color rubeus est quasi flamma ignis’ in three manu­scripts: Gonville and Caius 336/725, as well as Trinity O.1.77 and Countway Library of Medicine 23. Voigts also mentions Sloane 2320 and Takamiya 33 in ‘The “Sloane Group”’, pp. 52–53. The final Sloane Sibling, Trinity 3566, can also be added to the list. This text appears to be unique to the Sibling Group manu­scripts. Since it is very short, it is also possible that it is extracted from a longer treatise and, for this reason, might not be identifiable in a catalogue which only lists incipits and explicits. 36  This text is discussed by Voigts in ‘The Master of the King’s Stillatories’. 37  The incipit ‘Aristoteles autem scribens Alexandro Magno ait’ can, according to eTK, be found in three manu­scripts: Gonville and Caius 336/725; Trinity O.1.77; and Cambridge, McClean Collection, Fitzwilliam Museum 261. The other Sibling Group manu­scripts can also be added to the list. 38  In addition to Aristotle, the treatise also makes references to medical authorities such Galen and Constantinus Africanus.

Introduction

14

The seventh treatise (7) is on the alcohol-based medicament aqua ardens, the main ingredient in the recipes given as part of item 5.39 The text praises the divine virtue of the substance, the wisdom of the physician who uses it, and its property of not causing an imbalance of humours, unlike many other laxative remedies that have harmful side effects in addition to healing. The treatise lists a number of remedies which involve the use of aqua ardens and specifies when to use them. It does not, however, give instructions for distilling the substance.40 The treatise on aqua ardens is followed by group of three plague treatises (8–10), all different versions of a plague text that in England is most commonly attributed to John of Burgundy, edited and described by Lister M. Matheson.41 The first version of John of Burgundy in the Sloane Sibling manu­scripts is in Latin and of the type that Matheson calls the long version.42 The second plague treatise is a slightly abbreviated Middle English translation of the Latin work that precedes it.43 The third treatise (10) is the epistolary version of the same treatise, beginning ‘Dilectissime frater, ut intellexi, multum times pro instanti pestilentia’.44 The treatise is anonymous and essentially contains the same infor39 

The eTK gives four hits: Boston Countway Library of Medicine 19; Sloane 3566; Gonville and Caius 336/725; and Trinity O.1.77, making it another work specific to the Sloane Sibling Group. 40  Voigts notes ‘The Tractatus […] praises the physician who uses aqua ardens, although it does not specify methods of distilling’ in ‘The Master of the King’s Stillatories’, p. 246. 41  Matheson, ‘Medecin sans frontieres’. See also Matheson, ‘John of Burgundy: Treatises on Plague’. For a Present-day English translation of the treatise, see Horrox, The Black Death, pp. 184–93. 42  According to Matheson, the treatise seems originally to have been composed in Liège in 1365, following the second epidemic, pestis secunda or pestis puerorum, of 1361–62, and survives in more than a hundred manu­scripts. It was translated to English, French, Dutch, and Hebrew. The six Sloane Sibling Group manu­scripts contain a slightly abbreviated version, which omits an astrological introduction. Matheson notes that the Sloane Siblings are the earliest manu­scripts to display this development, and it may well originate with them: ‘Medecin sans frontieres’, p. 19. 43  The eVK lists thirteen manu­scripts of the English version: Takamiya 33; Bethesda, MD, National Library of Medicine 4 (Schullian 514); Boston 19; Trinity O.1.77; Trinity College Cambridge R.14.52; Cambridge, Emmanuel College, 69; Gonville and Caius 336/725; Sloane 706; Sloane 776; Sloane 1588; Sloane 1764; Sloane 2320; Sloane 3566. Matheson identifies more copies of the Middle English version than of the Latin version, mentioning more than forty manu­scripts: ‘John of Burgundy: Treatises on Plague’, p. 572. Many of the Middle English manu­scripts, including Sloane Siblings, attribute the work to ‘John of Bordeaux’, a translation error based on confusing Burdegalia and Burgundia: ‘Medecin sans frontieres’, pp. 21–22. 44  According to Matheson, the epistolary version perhaps originates before 1407. The eTK

Introduction

15

mation as the other John of Burgundy texts. It differs from the other two in its reorganization of the content so that all recipes are at the end. The anthology concludes with an astrological section, which consists of several shorter treatises, some of which are in English and some in Latin. It includes De condicionibus vij planetarum (11), a short Middle English ‘nativity’ with strong physiognomical leanings on the Seven Planets and their influence on a person’s character.45 The next treatise (12) contains the image of the zodiac man,46 which depicts celestial influence on the human body, and Latin instructions on how to interpret it. Four of the Sibling Group manu­scripts contain the texts De condicionibus septem planetarum (11) and De signis sumptis per lunam in quo signo zodiaci sit (12), but they are missing from the Second Generation manu­scripts. The final item in the Sibling sequence of texts consists of charts for calculating the houses of the moon and instructions on how to use them. The astrological tables vary from manu­script to manu­script and are missing from the Second Generation, which replace them with different astrological texts and a volvelle.

Between Learned and Popular Medicine The Sibling Texts, described above, include both treatises which are unique to the Group and ones which were in wide circulation and survive in numerous manu­scripts. While all of the texts are characteristic of the GalenicHippocratic-Aristotelian tradition of medicine, the unchallenged theoretical paradigm of the day, some reveal interests and sensibilities specific to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.47 Standard topics for the type of medicine that can best be called scholastic medicine include the laxative and purgative remedies for treating imbalances, the uroscopical treatises for making a diagnosis, lists six versions of the tract, with its incipit ‘In primis caveas’: Sloane 1124; Sloane 3285; Sloane 393; London, British Library, MS Royal 9.A.XIV; Royal 17.A.XXXII; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 196. The Family Resemblance manu­script Wellcome 784 can be added to the same list, as can all Sibling Group manu­scripts. 45  The genre of astrology called nativities was based on predicting the character and fate of a new-born baby based on his or her time of birth; see, e.g., Page, Astrology in Medi­eval Manu­ scripts. 46  The zodiac man is ubiquitous in late medieval astro-medical manu­scripts, and it also became standard in early modern printed almanacs. See North, Cosmos, p. 292. See also Clark, The Zodiac Man. 47  See, e.g., Jacquart, ‘Medical Scholasticism’.

Introduction

16

and the regimen of health, which all function within the framework of the humoral theory of physiology.48 The astrological texts reflect trends current at the time. Although astrology was always important in scholastic medicine, it received heightened attention in the late Middle Ages.49 This was partly a reaction to the plague epidemics, since a greater emphasis on medical astrology was one of the responses to the devastation caused by the Black Death and subsequent epidemics.50 These epidemics are also the reason for the inclusion of no less than three versions of the plague treatise by John of Burgundy. The late Middle Ages were also characterized by the medicinal use of distilled alcohol, here exemplified by the instructions for preparing and using aqua ardens.51 The organization of treatises is similar to a number of other fifteenth-century collections, such as the commonplace book of John Crophill, which now survives as London, British Library, MS Harley 1735, or an astro-medical handbook found in British Library, MS Sloane 1315.52 What makes the Sloane Siblings different is the standard order in which this group of texts has been copied in the six manu­scripts. Indeed, the standard order is one of the reasons why these manu­scripts are commonly discussed as a part of organized, commercial book production. The large proportion of Latin texts is also unusual in a period when the full range of medical treatises could already be found as vernacular translations (see Chapter 6 below). Even if the large number of Latin texts suggests a somewhat learned audience, these texts are not university treatises, with extended theoretical discussion and systematic references to authorities, nor do they represent the most simplified and popular end. Tavormina notes that the Twenty-Jordan Series occupies something of a middle ground between academic treatises and the most popular type.53 Matheson makes a similar observation on the popularity of John of Burgundy: 48 

Shore. 49 

For a thorough summary of the humoral theory, see Glacken, Traces on the Rhodian

See Honkapohja, ‘The Trinity Seven Planets’. An authorative board of physicians at the Uni­ver­sity of Paris stated in their report in 1348 that a conjunction of Jupiter and Mars had occurred in the house of Aquarius in 1345, which had drawn vapours from the earth and poisoned the air with a lethal miasma. See Horrox, The Black Death, pp. 159–60. 51  See Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, pp. 69–71. 52  See Taavitsainen, Middle English Lunaries, p. 66; Brown, ‘The Seven Planets’, p. 6. 53  Tavormina, ‘The Twenty-Jordan Series’, p. 41. 50 

Introduction

17

The text’s popularity can be ascribed to a combination of factors. First, it was easily available in England; second, it offered a short, practical set of rules and recipes, especially after the astrological introduction had been cut and the structure simplified into four chapters.54

Tavormina’s and Matheson’s observations can be extended to other texts in the anthology. These texts present their content as a practical set of rules and instructions, giving some theoretical background, but without detailed references to authorities that would mention the work and the section that the theory is based on. The theoretical discussion in the Sibling Set Text is less detailed than, for example, in the uroscopical treatise by Henry Daniel, or even encyclopaedias such as John Trevisa’s translation of De proprietatibus rerum by Bartholomaeus Anglicus.55 Consequently, the Sibling Set Texts are not academic treatises which would be in continuous conversation with authorities and authoritative texts, as scholastic medicine was centred on authority, and ways of referring to authoritative works and practitioners were transmitted from Latin to the vernacular.56 However, the Sibling Set Texts do differ from the more popular tradition of remedy books, which merely list cures and recipes, by the inclusion of their concise and distilled version of medical theory. All in all, they constitute a very useful little medical anthology which may indeed have been collected with the commercial book market in mind. With the possession of this anthology, the user would have had at his or her disposal tools for making a prognosis based on uroscopy or astrology, the standard methods of the day, as well as a streamlined source of information on diet and administering various medicines, including laxatives and purgatives as well as alcoholbased ones.57

54  Matheson, ‘Medecine sans frontieres’, p. 26. Significantly, he ascribes the simplification of the treatise to the removal of the astrological introduction to the Voigts-Sloane Group, noting it ‘first occurred in Latin texts written in England, exemplified by the related Sloane 2320 […]; Sloane 3566 […]; Trinity College O.1.77; Countway Library of Medicine 19 […]; Takamiya 33 […]’ and ‘Gonville and Caius College 336/725 […] all belonging to or associated with what Linda Ehrsam Voigts has called the Sloane Group’; ‘Medecine sans frontieres’, p. 19. 55  See Jasin, ‘A Critical Edition of the Middle English Liber uricrisiarum’; On the Properties of Things, ed. by Seymour, i. 56  See Taavitsainen, ‘Transferring Classical Discourse Conventions’, pp. 37–40. 57  See Harley, ‘The Middle English Contents of a Fifteenth-Century Medical Handbook’, p. 172.

Introduction

18

William Ebesham, the Scribe Who Copied the Boston Manu­script This leads us to the question: what was the intended audience of this medical anthology? Fortunately, it is possible to answer it with regard to one of the manu­scripts, since the origin and medieval provenance of one of the Sibling manu­scripts is known, and can be connected to the Paston letters. A. I. Doyle identifies the Secretary hand of the scribe of Boston 19 as belonging to William Ebesham, a freelance scribe based in Westminster.58 Two notes from Ebesham, a letter pleading for payment and a bill, survive as a part of the Paston letters (London, British Library, MS Add. 43491).59 Based on these, Doyle identifies the manu­script as ‘a little book of physick’, which is mentioned in both letters. Ebesham appears to have copied this medical collection, in addition to a number of other items, for John Paston (II) while the latter was on the continent for the marriage of Princess Margaret of York in summer 1468. If Doyle’s identification is correct, and it is generally accepted as such, it gives us unusually precise information on the provenance of Boston 19. We know the patron, the scribe, his fee, the exact location of copying, and we can establish termini both a quo and ad quem within three months.60 Several documents connect Ebesham to Westminster Abbey, including a number of commissions for its monks. The plea for payment finds him in rather desperate circumstances. Ebesham writes of how he lies ‘in seintwarye at grete coste and amonges right vnresonable askers’ (in sanctuary at great cost and among very unreasonable collectors) and stresses how he has laboured in his writings for Paston, asking him to send ‘oon of your olde gownes’ (one of your old gowns). Doyle’s interpretation that Ebesham had taken refuge in the abbey ‘from his creditors or worse’ seems correct.61 Later connections to the abbey include leasing a tenement there between 1475 and 1478. He witnessed a legal document in the monastic infirmary in 1497. In the 1460s, he worked for the Pastons. The Paston letters include mentions of him visiting his employer in Norfolk and working for him for a while there. His other work for the Pastons includes copying his ‘Great Book’, as well as official documents relating to Caister College.62 58 

See Doyle, ‘The Work of a Late-Fifteenth Century English Scribe’. Paston Letters and Papers, ed. by Davis, ii, 386–87 and 391–92. 60  See Doyle, ‘The Work of a Late-Fifteenth Century English Scribe’, p. 299. 61  See Doyle, ‘The Work of a Late-Fifteenth Century English Scribe’, p. 301. Linda Voigts is of the opinion that Ebesham may have exaggerated his plight and that he received a good price for the books (personal communication, May 2015). 62  See Doyle, ‘The Work of a Late-Fifteenth Century English Scribe’, and Mooney, ‘Locating Scribal Activity’, pp. 192–93. 59 

Introduction

19

Figure 3. A quire signed with the year 1462. London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948, fol. 51r. © The British Library Board.

After having left the Pastons, his work includes commissions for Westminster Abbey and its monks. William Caxton was also at Westminster while Ebesham was there. The work of both of these book artisans can be found in the manu­ script Manchester John Rylands Library, MS Lat. 395, which contains texts copied by Ebesham and printed by Caxton in the same covers, showing the old and new method of book production in collaboration.63

Other Evidence of an Origin in London Doyle’s identification of the Boston manu­script with the Paston letters and William Ebesham may be the single most important connection of the VoigtsSloane Group to London or its metropolitan area, but Voigts also mentions a few other features to support the connection. According to her: Nothing in the group codices themselves identifies a location, but the John Shirley connection of the related Add. MS 5467 and the William Ebesham connection of the related Countway MS 19 suggest London or Westminster.64

She refers to items translated by John Shirley in the Family Resemblance manu­ script Add. 5467. Shirley was known as a scribe, translator, and book collector in London in the mid-fifteenth century.65 I am, however, sceptical about using Add. 5467 as evidence for the origin of Voigts-Sloane Group, as it is not a Core Group or a Sibling Group manu­script, instead belonging to the class of Family Resemblance manu­scripts whose connection to the group is debatable (see Chapter 4 below). 63 

See Doyle, ‘The Work of a Late-Fifteenth Century English Scribe’, p. 317, and Mooney, ‘Locating Scribal Activity’, pp. 192–93. 64  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 37. 65  See, for example, Doyle, ‘More Light on John Shirley’, and Connolly, John Shirley.

Introduction

20

A much clearer connection can be found in one of the Core Group manu­ scripts, Sloane 2948, which contains a scribal signature stating that it was copied in London in July 1462: ‘London perscripsi illud die veneris nona die mensis Julii, 1462. et r.r. Edwardi 4ti anno secundo’ (fol. 51r) (London, I wrote this on Friday, 9th of July 1462, and in the second year of the reign of King Edward IV). The signature is shown in Figure 3. There are a few other years and dates found in signatures or marginal comments, but this is the only scribal signature to mention a place. However, signatures with a date can also be found in Sloane 1313, which mentions ‘die quarto Ianuarii’ and a year, 1458 (fol. 135r), as well as ‘quarto Ianuarii 2’ and ‘quarto Ianuarii 3’ (fols 136r and 137r). Sloane 2320 has the year 1454 scribbled in the top margin (fol. 65r). Although the evidence is not overwhelming, the known provenance of the Boston manu­script, supported by the signature in Sloane 2948, suggests that the Voigts-Sloane Group was copied in London or its vicinity. Later studies build upon this notion and the codicological work carried out by Voigts. Voigts herself only makes a few initial observations. She hypothesizes that the uniformity in the Group could be explained by ‘a publisher’ who exercised control over the form and subject matter of the manu­scripts, and states that ‘these manu­scripts deserve serious study, for they suggest a uniformity and co-ordination in late medieval English book production that has not hitherto been noted’.66 In another article she mentions both the Sibling and Core manu­ scripts as evidence ‘of scribal or workshop specialisation […]. The salient features of both groups lead to the conclusion that medical and scientific “publishing” could be found in the handwritten book in England in the half-century before Caxton’.67 In later scholarship, it has become commonplace to discuss the Voigts-Sloane Group manu­scripts as examples of commercial book production in the area. Monica Green, in an article on women’s literacy, mentions the bilingual Voigts-Sloane Group as a part of a ‘veritable mass production of volumes of medical and scientific texts that employed English and Latin on an essentially equal basis’.68 Claire Jones brings up the possibility ‘that these manu­ 66 

Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, pp. 37 and 27. See Voigts, ‘Scientific and Medical Books’. As a second example of specialization, Voigts mentions ‘the Latin codices written by the scribe Hermann Zurke of Greifswald, a scrivener working in England responsible for six manu­scripts dated from 1449 to 1460 […] five of the codices he signed are medical’ (p. 385) and four of these were copied to Gilbert Kymer in Oxford 1451. She also notes that ‘these manu­scripts represent a different kind of text and a wealthier audience than does the Sloane Group’ (p. 385). 68  Green, ‘The Possibilities of Literacy’, p. 39. 67 

Introduction

21

scripts were produced for speculative sale’.69 While these remarks are intriguing, and the studies are worthy contributions to their own subjects, both are dependent upon the original codicological scholarship by Voigts and do not contribute to our understanding of the manner of production of these manu­ scripts. The aim of this study is to advance our understanding of how these manu­ scripts were copied by a careful examination of codicological evidence to see whether they contain signs of a publisher, co-ordination, speculative sale, or even ‘veritable mass production’. In order to do this, we need to establish the ways of facilitating the production of manu­script books shortly before printing and the codicological features that can be used to identify them.

69 

Jones, ‘Discourse Communities and Medical Texts’, p. 33.

Chapter 1

The Book Trade in London before Printing George the booke sellar | Hath moo bookes | Than all they of the toune. | He byeth them all | Suche as they ben, | Be they stolen or enprinted, | Or othirwyse pourchaced. | He hath doctrinals, catons, | Oures of our lady, | Donettis, partis, accidents, | Sawters well enlumined, | Bounden with claspes of siluer, | Bookes of physike, | Seuen salmes, kalenders, | Ynke and perchemyn, | Pennes of swannes, | Pennes of ghees, | Good portoses, | Which ben worth good money.1

I

n the light of a considerable body of recent scholarship, book production in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries differed from the literary culture of previous centuries, which had been concentrated around centres such as universities, monasteries, the court, and its offices, as well as minor courts such as some aristocratic households, or episcopal courts in York and Canterbury.2 Rising demand and economic growth drew entrepreneurs to London, made commercial copying profitable, and led to the rise of retail commerce in new and second-hand books. Medical works were part of the trade, as the poem on George the Bookseller mentions (‘Bookes of physike’).3 The reasons for the emergence of the book trade were both social and technological. Literacy had increased and was spreading among tradesmen, merchants, and artisans, who needed the skills of reading and writing to record their administrative and commercial transactions. The same people could also 1 

A poem printed by William Caxton in 1480, but written originally in Bruges in 1367. William Caxton’s Dialogues, ed. by Bradley, pp. 36–3, 47. Quoted in Collette and GarrettGoodyear, The Later Middle Ages: A Sourcebook. 2  Christianson, ‘The Rise of London’s Book-Trade’, p. 128. 3  Christianson, ‘The Rise of London’s Book-Trade’, p. 128.

Chapter 1

24

use it for their edification and entertainment, forming a new larger market for utilitarian and belletristic books.4 At the same time, the introduction of paper as a cheaper substitute for parchment was bringing about a subtle but fundamental transformation, making books a commodity that an increasing number of people could afford.5 The exact point of origin of the commercial book trade in London is somewhat unclear, but by the beginning of the fifteenth century various book artisans, including scribes, limners, parchminers, binders, and stationers, had organized themselves into guilds, indicating that their occupations were ‘sufficiently developed and competitive to make its regulation desirable, if not essential’.6 Paternoster Row in the vicinity of St Paul’s emerged as the centre for book artisans and later became the location of many printing presses.7 There was direct continuity from the establishment of the 1403 guild to the Stationers Company, which came to dominate the market for printed books.8 Even though information on contracts is scarce, the standard model of book production appears to have been what is known as the bespoke trade.9 This means that a patron who wanted to purchase a book employed a scribe, and possibly other book artisans, and specified the items he wanted copied, after which the participants negotiated terms agreeable to both parties, indicating the texts to be copied, the grade of hand to be used, and the amount of decoration, as well as the price and delivery time.10 4 

Harris, ‘Patrons, Buyers and Owners’. See, for example, Lyall, ‘Materials: The Paper Revolution’, and Da Rold, ‘Materials’. 6  Quoted from Christianson, ‘The Rise of London’s Book-Trade’, p. 128. In May 1357, London city records mention a common craft guild, to which three types of text artisans belonged, writers of the court hand, text writers, and limners. The Writers of the Court Hand left this joint establishment in 1373 and started their own guild, and limners are also listed separately. On 12 July 1403, the various book artisans reunited, forming a joint fraternity, also including stationers. 7  The main study is Christianson, ‘Evidence for the Study of London’s Late Medi­e val Manu­script-Book Trade’. 8  See, for example, Blagden, The Stationers’ Company. 9  Information on the book trade in England is sadly lacking compared to some other European countries such as Italian city-states or Catalonia, whose notarial registers contain informative contracts for copying books; see Doyle, ‘Recent Directions in Medi­e val Manu­ script Study’, p. 11. Furthermore, scribal colophons are rare, as it was not customary for English scribes to sign the manu­scripts they had copied; see Mooney, ‘Professional Scribes’, p. 134. 10  See Hanna, ‘A Book Contract and its “Set Text”’. 5 

The Book Trade in London before Printing

25

Professional Scribes With the emergence of commercial book production, an increasing number of people made their living by copying texts as a profession. A number of codicological and paleographical criteria can be used to identify a professional scribe, as opposed to private production of books for personal use.11 Mooney gives the following criteria: 1. a very high quality of workmanship; 2. uniform quality: that is, the ability to write clearly and maintain a ductus, aspect, and consistent style through a long piece of writing; 3. the survival of the hand in more than one manu­script; 4. an ability to write in more than one style and maintain consistency in letter forms within a style; 5. the employment of certain details of layout, such as writing headings in a different style from text or accounting for formal glosses or commentary in margins when ruling; 6. evidence of collaboration with other professional scribes and/or with an artist or atelier.12 Establishing whether a manu­script was copied by a professional may not tell us very much, as there were several classes of scribes, all of whom may have been able to produce professional-quality work.13 In addition to the commercial scribes whose main occupation was copying books, there were scriveners who copied legal texts, text writers, and government clerks. Some recent studies have emphasized the role of scribes who worked as notaries and clerks and had become accustomed to using paper in their work.14 What is more, throughout the period the trade in second-hand books was as important, possibly more important, than the trade in new ones.15 11  Lyall distinguishes four main types of scribal activity. These include the production of commissioned codices by professional scribes and other book artisans, i.e., ‘the commercial production of books on a speculative basis; copying of books within religious houses for the use of the religious themselves; and the private production of books for the writer’s own use’; see Lyall, ‘Materials: The Paper Revolution’, p. 14. 12  The list is from Mooney, ‘Professional Scribes’, pp. 136–37. Numbering is added by me. 13  See Mooney, ‘Locating Scribal Activity’, p. 185. 14  See, for example, Da Rold, ‘Materials’, p. 25; and Kwakkel, ‘A New Type of Book’. 15  Some figures suggest that it exceeded the trade in new manu­scripts. For instance, of

26

Chapter 1

Text-writers in the vicinity of St Paul’s and Writers of the Courtly Letter may have been the biggest guilds, but a ‘significant portion’ of text copying ‘was undertaken by men who did not belong to a guild because they were not born freemen of the City of London and could not afford the time, money or trouble to become members of the guild’.16 In the fifteenth century, a number of named scribes of continental origins appear in England and especially in Oxford, apparently paid freelancers, presumably offering a highly competitive service, by comparison with native ones.17 One such freelancer was William Ebesham, who was located in Westminster, outside the jurisdiction of the guilds. As a major centre of administration, the Abbey did have its own scribes, but it appears to have provided a good environment for other types of scribal activity, since some of the most prolific scribes were located there, and Ebesham’s commissions did extend to manu­scripts relating to the Abbey.18 Because of Ebesham’s dire circumstances, as he was taking refuge from his debtors in the Abbey, Paston appears to have got his texts for a bargain price: ‘Presumably competition led William Ebesham in 1468–9 to charge John Paston no more than “2d a leaff ” for straight copying of a variety of texts.’19 The price for the Boston manu­script, which is referred to as ‘the litill boke of phisyke’ in the plea and ‘a litill booke of pheesyk’ in the bill, was 20d. Ebesham received the payment from ‘Sir Thomas Leenys in Westminster’,20 who, according to A. I. Doyle, was Paston’s intermediary.21

the identified manu­scripts in the Hum[fph]rey, duke of Gloucester’s Library, now part of the collections of the Bodleian Library in Oxford, more than half were acquired second-hand. See Rundle, ‘English Books and the Continent’, p. 290. See also Harris, ‘Patrons, Buyers and Owners’, p. 171; Hellinga, ‘Four Book Auctions’ and ‘Manu­scripts in the Hands of Printers’. 16  Mooney, ‘Locating Scribal Activity’, p.  190. Mooney is of the opinion that the importance of Paternoster row has been overemphasized, and that its near monopoly in the 1500s has diverted attention from other significant centres of book production. 17  See Doyle, ‘Recent Directions in Medi­eval Manu­script Study’, p. 11, and Christianson, ‘The Rise of London’s Book-Trade’, p. 130. 18  See Doyle, ‘The Work of a Late-Fifteenth Century English Scribe’, p. 312, and Mooney, ‘Locating Scribal Activity’, pp. 192–93. 19  See Christianson, ‘The Rise of London’s Book-Trade’, p. 132. Voigts, however, is of the opinion the price was reasonably good (personal communication). 20  Paston Letters and Papers, ed. by Davis, ii, 391. 21  Doyle, ‘The Work of a Late-Fifteenth Century English Scribe’, p. 299.

The Book Trade in London before Printing

27

Collaboration between Independent Book Artisans While older studies sometimes refer to scriptoria in relation to the copying of medical manu­scripts, recent research has rejected the notion of large commercial institutions that would have employed several scribes under the same roof.22 The emerging picture is one of individual scribes and other book artisans living close to one another, ‘with each step in a book’s creation perhaps occurring in a different artisan’s shop’.23 The seminal article for our understanding of book production, and the one that informed Voigts’s description of the Voigts-Sloane Group, was published by Doyle and Parkes in 1978 on the production of copies of Canterbury Tales and Confessio Amantis.24 The novel discovery was based on identification of awkward transitions between quires, which revealed that a manu­script containing Gower’s Confessio Amantis, Trinity College, Cambridge, R.3.2, was divided between five scribes, each working independently of each other. The evidence suggests that the manu­script was ‘farmed out’ to an ad hoc team of five professional scribes by a central agency.25 The codicological signs for simultaneous copying of quires are: 1. ‘Awkward transitions’ between the stints assigned for each of the five copyists. In Trinity R.3.2, scribe B, Adam Pinkhurst, wrote two lines less per page than scribe C, which caused a deficiency at the end of quire four. Scribe C fixed this by copying an extra leaf which was inserted between the two quires to supply the missing lines.26 22 

An example of a study which mentions medical scriptoria is McIntosh, ‘Present Indica­ tive Plural Forms’. 23  Quoted from Christianson, ‘The Rise of London’s Book-Trade’, p. 130. On collaboration between individual book artisans, see also Mooney, ‘Locating Scribal Activity’, pp. 185–86. 24  Doyle and Parkes, ‘The Production of Copies’. 25  Three of the hands could be identified in other manu­scripts and belong to artisans known from other London manu­scripts. One was the scribe of the Ellesmere (Huntington, EL 26 C9) and Hengwrt (National Library of Wales, MS Peniarth 392D) manu­scripts of Canterbury Tales, later identified as Adam Pinkhurst, Chaucer’s scribe and the subject of a short poem addressed to Adam his scrivener. The second one was very similar to the prolific Delta-scribe, and the third one a Privy Seal clerk, who ‘used the styles of script current in that office’; see Doyle and Parkes, ‘The Production of Copies’, p. 185. On Adam Pinkhurst, see Mooney, ‘Chaucer’s Scribe’. 26  Doyle and Parkes, ‘The Production of Copies’, p. 165. For the identification of Scribe B as Pinkhurst, see Mooney, ‘Chaucer’s Scribe’.

Chapter 1

28

2. Lack of supervision and co-ordination for the whole codex. ‘Each scribe seems to have “proofread” and corrected his own transcription’, and ‘no one person has left marks of direction or coordination throughout the whole manu­script’.27 The central agency responsible for employing the scribes and dividing the exemplar between them may have been a stationer. In a premodern context, the word meant a shopkeeper with a fixed place of business who dealt in writing materials and second-hand books. The term was originally used for university officials, responsible for supplying reading materials to students, and it was on an university model that London’s commercial book production was based.28 A stationer could also arrange the manufacture of new books, either commissioning a scribe, a limner, a binder, or performing some of these tasks himself.29 Different types of book artisans could take the role of the stationer ‘to oversee others’ work’.30 In conclusion, evidence from commercial production of manu­script books in London suggests that the production of new books was typically a collaborative effort, but one carried out by book artisans working individually rather than under the same roof. To approach the matter from a different perspective, Mooney and Matheson list features which would be evidence of commercial scriptoria. These are: 1. combination of evidence of a standard exemplar kept in ready accessibility for repeated copying; 2. evidence of supervision of scribal copying; 3. evidence of repeated collaboration between two or more scribes and/or scribes and artists.31

27 

Doyle and Parkes, ‘The Production of Copies’, p. 166. On stationers, see Blagden, The Stationers’ Company, p. 22, and Christianson, ‘The Rise of London’s Book-Trade’, p. 130. 29  See Blagden, The Stationers’ Company, p. 22, and Mooney, ‘Locating Scribal Activity’, pp. 185–86. 30  Christianson, ‘The Rise of London’s Book-Trade’, p. 130. 31  Mooney and Matheson, ‘The Beryn Scribe and his Texts’, pp. 363–64. 28 

The Book Trade in London before Printing

29

Ghent-Bruges Books of Hours and Speculative Production A feature of the late medieval manu­script trade just prior to the introduction of printing which has received considerable attention is the idea that commercial scribes copied popular texts speculatively for sale in a stationer’s shop without a specific commission. In addition to the Voigts-Sloane Group, the notion has been proposed for Yorkist and Lancastrian genealogy rolls, which were of interest to many during the Wars of the Roses, as well as certain extant manu­scripts of Layamon’s Brut and Gower’s Confessio Amantis.32 However, the notion is problematic, as speculative production is difficult to prove.33 Martha Driver and Michael Orr suggest the following features as possible signs of copying for speculative sales: leaving blank leaves for illustration, absence of initials, or marks left by a scribe for the illuminator to supply paraph signs (two tiny slashes), which would then permit the buyer to supply a desired illumination.34 Unfortunately, none of these features can be taken as conclusive evidence, as they could also have originated in other ways, including collaboration between book artisans in the vicinity of St Paul’s on a bespoke commission. One outstanding example of speculative production is books of hours made in the Low Countries.35 A considerable number of them, about two hundred surviving manu­scripts, were copied in Ghent and Bruges and seem to have been aimed specifically at the English or Scottish market. The agencies responsible for manufacturing and selling them have hitherto not been identified, but their intended market can be deduced from the inclusion of the so-called Sarum Rite, or the Use of Salisbury, which was only practised in Britain. Even with these books, it is difficult to define exact criteria for determining whether a manu­script was copied, illuminated, and bound for speculative 32 

See Mooney and Matheson, ‘The Beryn Scribe and his Texts’, p. 363, and Harris, ‘Patrons, Buyers and Owners’. 33  Harris, in her discussion of the production of manu­script books in fifteenth-century London, mentions that the one critical piece of evidence missing is ‘evidence of experiment in the rapid multiplication of copies in the period just prior to the invention of printing’; ‘Patrons, Buyers and Owners’, p. 172. I am also grateful to Matti Peikola for his feedback on my licentiate thesis and discussion of the point. 34  Driver and Orr, ‘Decorating and Illustrating the Page’. See also Partridge, ‘Designing the Page’, p. 85. 35  For these books of hours, see Rundle, ‘English Books and the Continent’, p. 277; Harris, ‘Patrons, Buyers and Owners’, p. 181; Doyle, ‘Recent Directions in Medi­eval Manu­script Study’, p. 13, as well as De Hamel, ‘Reflexions on the Trade in Books of Hours’.

Chapter 1

30

sale, as some of them were indeed commissioned by specific clients. However, the sheer number of surviving manu­scripts — several hundred can be found in libraries across the old and the new world36 — has led to a consensus among scholars that there was a vogue for books of hours from the Low Countries, to which the book artisans in Ghent and Bruges responded by copying them in numbers, which in the context of the handwritten book trade can be described as mass production.37 Britain was not the sole destination, as there are also Ghent-Bruges books of hours which have been copied for the German or Spanish market.38 The defining codicological characteristics for Ghent-Bruges books of hours would be: 1. the genre; 2. an instantly recognizable illumination scheme; 3. evidence of the standard exemplars used for illumination;39 4. an instantly recognizable binding, which, like the illumination, is among the finest in Europe at the time; 5. and a composition in which the sheet is laid out like a printed page.40 Interestingly, two of the defining features are the same as the ones proposed as evidence for commercial scriptoria by Mooney and Matheson, listed in the previous section: the use of the same exemplars and repeated collaboration between book artisans.41 Although co-operation and an efficient chain of production must have lowered costs, the resulting product was not cheap. The Ghent-Bruges books of hours are luxury items, next to which the plain and utilitarian manu­scripts of the Voigts-Sloane Group pale in comparison. The reason for the popularity of manu­scripts from the Low Countries was the high level of craftsmanship of bookmaking in those countries, which led to large enough demand to make speculative production commercially viable, even necessary.

36 

De Hamel, ‘Reflexions on the Trade in Books of Hours’, p. 29. Rundle, ‘English Books and the Continent’, p. 287. 38  De Hamel, ‘Reflexions on the Trade in Books of Hours’, p. 30. 39  See the two plates in De Hamel, ‘Reflexions on the Trade in Books of Hours’. 40  Linda Voigts, personal communication, February 2013. 41  See above and Mooney and Matheson, ‘The Beryn Scribe and his Texts’, pp. 363–64. 37 

The Book Trade in London before Printing

31

The Booklet: The Self-Contained Codicological Unit A codicological unit which has proved helpful in explaining the composition of certain manu­scripts, including some commercially copied late fifteenth-century ones, is the so-called ‘booklet’ or ‘fascicle’, originally defined and described by P. R. Robinson.42 The term refers to ‘a small but structurally independent production containing a single work or a number of short works’.43 The booklet forms an intermediate codicological unit between a quire and a full codex: a unit of flexible length, consisting of one or more quires, and quicker and easier to produce than a full-length codex. Moreover, several booklets can be joined together in the same covers to form a codex. Robinson defines the booklet by its textual content. This makes it different from both the quire and pecia,44 which are purely physical units in the make-up of a codex. A booklet, in contrast, ‘has no standard length because what determined its size was its content and there was no optimum length for a text’.45 Robinson gives a list of ten features for identifying booklets: 1. variation in size of leaves in different parts of a manu­script; 2. variation in scribal hand or in page format in different parts of a manu­ script; 3. variation in style of decoration or illumination in different parts of a manu­ script; 4. absence of catchwords at ends of quires (which may indicate once independent sections of a manu­script); 5. independent sets of quire signatures in different parts of a manu­script; 6. soiled or rubbed outer leaves of a quire; 42  Robinson, ‘The “Booklet”’. On booklet manu­scripts see, for example, Mooney, ‘Scribes and Booklets of Trinity College’. For the importance of booklets in medical manu­scripts, see Voigts, ‘Scientific and Medical Books’, pp. 353–56. 43  The quote is from Robinson, ‘The “Booklet”’, p. 46. 44  The pecia system was one method for facilitating manu­script production before printing, but it appears to have died out north of the Alps in the fourteenth century. For this reason, I leave it out of the current study. In Oxford, the last official described as being responsible for pecia died in 1341 or 1342. The university converted the box used to store exemplars to another use in 1347. The last manu­script with pecia marks at the Uni­ver­sity of Paris was completed on 10 July 1347. For discussion of codicological evidence of pecia, see Pollard, ‘The Pecia System’. 45  Robinson, ‘The “Booklet”’, p. 46.

Chapter 1

32

7. quires formed of varying numbers of leaves in different parts of a manu­ script; 8. variation in size of possible final quires of a textual unit — either an excessively large quire or a quire containing very few leaves so as to accommodate the end of a text exactly; 9. blank leaves at the end of quires, often cut away; 10. short texts, filler, added, sometimes in later hands, in originally blank spaces at the end of quires.46 Robinson’s definition was refined and criticized by Ralph Hanna, who makes a number of modifications and clarifications to it. He adds three more criteria: 1. variation in the material from which different parts of a manu­script are made: shifts between paper and vellum, shifts (insofar as these are recognizable) among kinds or qualities of vellum, shifts among different paper stocks, 2. variation between sources from which different parts of a manu­script have been copied, 3. variation in subject matter in different parts of a manu­script.47 In addition, one could add: 4. damage that has affected only part of the manu­script.48 Hanna also makes two important points about booklets. The first one is about the commercial sale of booklets and a combination of speculative production and bespoke trade. He proposes that booklets provided medieval booksellers, who typically produced works to order in what is considered a ‘bespoke trade’, a way to have some ready stock, especially of popular texts, without the major investment inherent in producing a full codex ‘on spec’. Booklets further provided a useful way of building up such large codices out of a series of smaller sections — a procedure which may have been useful both in terms of marketing and in terms of flexibly planning out the production work.49 46  The list is based on Robinson, ‘The “Booklet”’, pp. 47–48; see also Hanna, ‘Booklets in Medi­eval Manu­scripts’. 47  See Hanna, ‘Booklets in Medi­eval Manu­scripts’, p. 108. 48  Carmen Cardelle de Hartmann, personal communication, 2013. 49  Hanna, ‘Booklets in Medi­eval Manu­scripts’, pp. 101–02.

The Book Trade in London before Printing

33

The second point is about what he calls ‘codicization’. The term refers to how a booklet can be expanded in a number of ways. When a quire is less than half full, it is possible to add bifolia in the middle, or alternatively outside the quire. Alternatively, larger booklets can be integrated or joined in ways which obscure the original separateness of their production. Such procedures, by readjusting textual linkages, in effect disrupt the appearance of ‘self-sufficiency’ without changing the fact that the codex has been produced by means of booklets.50

Thus, some larger codices may contain hidden booklets which have been embedded inside the larger codex. To conclude, there is evidence for three different ways of producing manu­ scripts quicker: first, several scribes may have been worked on a commission simultaneously, each being responsible for their own stint in a longer codex; second, manu­scripts in a few popular genres, like books of hours, may have been copied speculatively, without a commission; third, related to speculative sale, bookshops may used booklet to provide some stock, which could be combined into codices or purchased by client separately. In the following chapters, we examine whether any of the Voigts-Sloane manu­scripts contain codicological features that would reveal an origin in any of these.

50 

Hanna, ‘Booklets in Medi­eval Manu­scripts’, pp. 103–04.

Chapter 2

Sibling Group: Manu­script Descriptions and Assessing Evidence of Co‑ordinated Book Production

H

aving established possible ways of enhancing the copying of manu­script books before printing, it is now time to examine the Voigts-Sloane Group through a close codicological analysis. The Boston manu­script with its Ebesham-Paston connection is a natural starting point. I will begin with it, proceeding to the other two pocket-sized manu­scripts christened by Voigts as ‘half-sisters’ or ‘cousins’: Sloane 3566 and Trinity O.1.77. Another reason for choosing the Boston manu­script as the starting point is that it can be considered prototypical of the Sibling Group, because it contains the Sibling Set Texts in their most common order and no additional ones. In all other manu­scripts, the anthology is accompanied by further texts, as illustrated by Figure 4, which also shows the proportion of Latin and English in these manu­scripts. Boston, Countway Library of Medicine, MS Ballard 19 Fols 65. Paper, in good condition. 140 × 100 mm. Frame 90 × 65 mm, containing on average sixteen lines per page. COLLATION: 1–220, 316, 418–3.1

Boston, Collectanea medica, Boston Medical Library, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, MS Ballard 19 is in a parchment binding, which, accord1 

In addition to Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, the manu­script is also described by Ballard in A Catalogue of Medi­eval and Renaissance Manu­scripts and Incunabula. Middle English texts in the manu­script were edited by Harley, ‘The Middle English Contents’.

36 Chapter 2

Figure 4. Sibling Set Text in the context of other texts in each Sibling Group manu­script.

ing to Voigts, is the only one of the Sibling and Core manu­scripts that may be medieval.2 Nevertheless, cropped marginal comments visible on folios 12r, 14v, 19r, 27v, 38r, and 59v suggest that the manu­script was trimmed for binding after the comments were made. The book is bound of unusually large quires: the first two consist of twenty leaves, the third of sixteen, and the fourth of eighteen, trimmed by three leaves from the end. The writing support is paper, comprising single stacks based on the appearance of the watermark ‘The Arms of Valencia’ (Briquet 2064 and 2067, Heawood 8).3 Catchwords are visible on fols 20v, 40v and 56v. The leaves are foliated with pencil by a modern hand. 2  3 

See Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 54. Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 28, notes that the watermark ‘occurs in Sloane MSS 1118,

SIBLING GROUP AND CO-ORDINATED BOOK PRODUCTION

37

The manu­script contains decoration in red and blue ink. The red ink was added when the brown ink was still wet, which is revealed by the smudging of the red and brown ink (see Plate 1, p. 39).4 This strongly suggests that the scribe and the rubricator were the same person. This conjecture is supported by the bill from Ebesham to Sir John Paston II, where Ebesham charges an additional iij. s. iiij. d. ‘for the rubrissheyng of all the booke’.5 The blue ink, in contrast seems to have been applied after copying the entire manu­script. The scribe left empty space for capitula, and added the letter used for it in either black or red ink. The final text, for some reason, lacks capitula — one is tempted to speculate that this deficiency is related to Ebesham’s dire circumstances when composing his plea for payment. Marginal comments in the manu­s cript are sparse, and some have been rendered illegible by the cropping of the pages. A few comments are clearly in another hand, including additional headings (fol. 38r). Some appear to be scribal, such as a red manicule (fol. 50v) drawn in the same ink as the rubrics which points towards a section in the long Latin plague treatise attributed to John of Burgundy that warns against sexual intercourse in the time of the plague (‘Et super omnia caueas coitum’), as it causes sweating, opening the pores of the body and allowing venomous air to enter. The red ink reveals the person who made the remark to be William Ebesham, who must have been a fairly young man at the time, and who found the recommendation either particularly important or amusing (see Plate 2, p. 40). The longest addition is a recipe for treating the measles (‘sequitur ordo in cura morbillorum’) in a different hand on the end flyleaves. Looking at the codicological features of the Boston manu­script in the context of commercial manu­script production thus suggests that the manu­script was copied and rubricated by a single scribe. Watermarks reveal that the manu­ script was copied using a single stack of paper. This fits in with the details from the two letters by Ebesham to Paston, which seem to refer to an instance of 2567, and 2948’ as well as the Boston manu­script: ‘Heawood identifies this watermark from Paston letters dated before 1459 and 1470, and Caxton books of 1477 and 1483.’ However, according to Voigts, ‘the Sloane Group appearances of this watermark do not resemble the Heawood drawing, fig. 8, so much as Briquet 2064 and 2067’. See Briquet, Les Filigranes, and Heawood, ‘Sources of Early English Paper-Supply’. 4  The letters ‘quod B.R.’ can be found in the explicits of many of the Sibling Group manu­ scripts, including Boston 19 and Sloane 2320. Voigts suggests that they very likely refer to Roger Bacon, whose texts can be found in Sloane 2320 and 1118; see Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, pp. 33–34. 5  See Paston Letters and Papers, ed. by Davis, ii, 392.

38 Chapter 2

bespoke trade, where the collection of texts was one of several items commissioned by John Paston from Ebesham. The evidence does not represent the collaborative efforts of a scriptorium or several book artisans working simultaneously. Nevertheless, Paston may have employed a separate illuminator for a historiated initial (fol. 1r) and the illustration of the zodiac man (fol. 57v), which is of higher quality than in Trinity O.1.77 and Gonville and Caius 336/725.6 The final quire is trimmed from the end by three leaves, which is a characteristic of booklets, but if the manu­script was sold as an unbound booklet it comprises only a single one. The two Paston letters do not make a reference to binding. London, British Library, MS Sloane 3566 Fols 1 + 143 + 1. Parchment, with one paper leaf, in good condition. 90 × 60 mm. Frame 57 × 36 mm, containing an average of thirteen lines per page. COLLATION: 18–158, 168+1, 176, 1812, 196. Catchwords in the hand of the main scribe on fols 8v, 16v, 23v, 32v, 40v, 48v, 56v, 64v, 72v, 80v, 88v, 96v, 104v, and 112v. Signatures are visible on quires 2–8, 11–13, and 16.7

Sloane 3566 is another pocket-sized manu­script in a standard British Library binding labelled MEDICAL TRACTS. BRITISH LIBRARY. SLOANE MS 3566. It differs from the other two ‘half-sisters’ by being copied entirely on parchment with a page size of 90 × 60 mm and a writing area of 57 × 36 mm, which makes it the smallest of the Sloane Sibling Group manu­scripts. The codex contains all of the texts which characterize the Sibling Group, but, unlike Boston 19, it also contains three additional texts that have been added at the end. These are all in Latin: De parva anathomia Galeni physici, the so-called ‘Anatomia porci’ of Copho, wrongly attributed to Galen (fols 127–38; eTK 1282J), which describes the anatomy of the pig (fols 127r–v). Galen used pigs 6 

It is also worth noting that the dark and the red ink were not smudged in the illustration of the zodiac man. 7  Many of the signatures have been partially cut in cropping. It seems very likely that the missing ones also disappeared at this stage. Typically they are only visible on the third and fourth leaves of the gathering. The letters start from quire 2 (quire 1 lacks a signature) and run consistently until quire 16. No signatures or watermarks are visible on the extra leaf. There are marks of red ink on the bottom part of the page. They are visible on several leaves towards the end of the codex, including the two additional quires, which lack any kind of red decoration. Since two pages also contain a red British Museum stamp, fols 137v and 143v, it seems likely that they result from an accident with the red ink when the manu­script was stamped in the British Library.

SIBLING GROUP AND CO-ORDINATED BOOK PRODUCTION

Plate 1. The Twenty-Jordan Series in Boston, Collectanea medica, Boston Medical Library, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, MS Ballard 19 (fol. 16r). The red and brown ink are smudged. Reproduced with permission of Boston Medical Library in the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine.

39

40 Chapter 2

Plate 2. A red manicule points towards the words ‘Et super omnia caueas coitum’ (And above all beware of sexual intercourse) in Boston, Collectanea medica, Boston Medical Library, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, MS Ballard 19 (fol. 50v). The manicule is absent from other Sibling Group manu­scripts. The red ink reveals it was added by Ebesham. Reproduced with permission of Boston Medical Library in the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine.

Plate 3. A text-organizing switch highlighted by rubrication in Boston, Collectanea medica, Boston Medical Library, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, MS Ballard 19 (fol. 49r). Reproduced with permission of Boston Medical Library in the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine. (See p. 130 for discussion.)

SIBLING GROUP AND CO-ORDINATED BOOK PRODUCTION

41

Figure 5. The Secretary book hand of London, British Library, MS Sloane 3566, fols 23v–24r. © The British Library Board.

and monkeys instead of humans in his dissections, as dissecting human cadavers was forbidden by Roman law.8 The other two texts are just fragments: ‘Tractatus de complexione pueri in matre’ (fols 139–42v; no eTK listing), on determining the complexion of the foetus while still in the mother’s womb; and ‘De natura duodecim signorum’, an astrological text (fols 142v–43; no eTK listing).9 The manu­script is written in a media book hand, which is fairly upright in appearance. The hand is less condensed and cursive than in Boston 19 or the hands found in the Core manu­scripts, and of similar level of formality as the third pocket-sized Sibling Trinity O.1.77. Unlike in Trinity O.1.77, the scribe uses almost exclusively Secretary forms.10 As is the case with Boston 19, the entire anthology is copied by a single scribe. The additional texts, however, are copied in darker ink by a slightly different, perhaps slightly cruder, hand. The final quire of the manu­script is in a faded brownish ink. The part of the manu­script which contains the Sibling Texts is all quired in eights, with the exception of the two last quires: 16 and 17. The additional quires at the end of the manu­script vary more in length: quire 18 consists of 8 

See Temkin, Galenism, pp. 114–15. Temkin’s book is an excellent and thorough study of Galen, his influence in the Middle Ages, and his later decline. 9  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 32. 10  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 51, describes the hand as a ‘Secretary hand with Angli­ cana features’.

42 Chapter 2

Figure 6. A printed woodcut version of the Zodiac Man. London, British Library, MS Sloane 3566, fol. 117r. © The British Library Board.

twelve leaves, and quire 19 of six. They also have thirteen lines per page, and pages are frame-ruled in a manner typical of Voigts-Sloane Group manu­scripts. Quire 16 contains an extra paper leaf featuring a printed woodcut version of the zodiac man, and quire 17 only contains six leaves, the last of which is cut in half. Neither quire 16 nor quire 17 has catchwords. The regular section with Sibling Texts contains decorated initials in red and blue at the beginning of each text. Some minor headings within the text are underlined with red, but scribal corrections are not. Red and blue paraph signs alternate with each other. Incipits and explicits are written directly with red ink without any black showing underneath. They seem to have been written by the same scribe. The blue ink has been added after the red, which shows in the way red virgulae can be seen under blue paraph marks in the incipits and explicits. Urine flasks are not in coloured ink, with the exception of dark ink for niger. The manu­script contains an interesting feature which clearly marks it as codex that originates in the transition period from hand-copied books to printing. The image of the zodiac man (fol. 117r) is a printed woodblock, inserted as the only paper leaf in the manu­script (see Figure 6). The practice of using printed images as illustrations is sometimes found in late fifteenth-century manu­scripts.11 11 

I discussed the appearance of the woodcut image with Peter Murray Jones and Charles

SIBLING GROUP AND CO-ORDINATED BOOK PRODUCTION

43

The illustration of the zodiac man became a standard feature of small almanacs, an extremely popular genre of early printed books.12 It is consequently difficult to say whether the woodcut was originally part of the plan or a result of later modification. The paper leaf does not contain a watermark that could be used to determine a connection to other Voigts-Sloane manu­scripts. The astrological texts and tables located on fols 118r–121r contain annotations in Latin, including explanations on the effects of signs of the zodiac. Aquarius has received the comments ‘Ian’ and ‘sanguinum’ in left and right margins respectively, and ‘Pisces Febre’ and ‘ffleumatium’. The last comment has been slightly clipped during cropping at some point. The annotation is in a near contemporary hand and a slightly darker ink than the hand of the scribe. When it comes to evidence of co-ordination in book production, Sloane 3566 is a more complicated case than the Boston manu­script. It contains more decoration, and the addition of the blue ink possibly represents the work of another book artisan. Moreover, the woodcut image makes the manu­script a curious hybrid of printing and hand copying from the transition period. Nevertheless, the regular format, fifteen quires of standard length copied by a single main scribe, contrasts with the methods for co-ordinated book production discussed above. The manu­script was definitely not ‘farmed out’ to several scribes, while the ruling and catchwords are standard and do not suggest speculative production. Furthermore, the codex does not consist of independent booklets. Incomplete additional texts at the end of the manu­script may have been added later, since they do not share decoration with the rest of the manu­script. Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.1.77 COLLATION: quired in eights, three flyleaves (two parchment, one paper) + 18–148, 148–1, 158–188, 196, 201, 218, 228–1, 238–258, 268–1 (the final quire is on parchment).13

The last of three pocket-sized half-sisters, Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.1.77 is bound in a white leather spine, purple-grey cardboard, and imitation vellum, a standard for manu­scripts donated to the Trinity College by Burnett, who both confirm that the practice is not unusual. I am also grateful to Jones for directing me to Martha Driver’s work on early printed images in England; Driver, The Image in Print, pp. 9, 11. For manu­script-print hybrids, see also Nyström, ‘Codicological Crossover’. 12  See North, Cosmos, p. 292. 13  The manu­script is catalogued by James in The Western Manu­scripts.

44 Chapter 2

Roger Gale in 1738, which now form the O collection.14 The codex consists of 202 leaves, most of which are on paper. The first two flyleaves are on parchment, as is the final quire (26) in its entirety. In addition, the manu­script contains one paper flyleaf (the third one from the beginning). The leaves are sextodecimosized, as shown by the chain-lines and watermarks in the top right corners of the folios. Most of the gatherings have been bound up in eights, but with some variation.15 The size of the pages is 105 × 70 mm with a writing frame of 70 × 50 mm, which contains thirteen to eighteen lines per folium. As is typical of 16-mo manu­scripts, watermarks are not very visible, but three of them can be found by careful examination. They are a ‘bull’s head with St. Andrew’s Cross’ (Heawood 18), a circle with three hills called ‘Mounts’ by Heawood (Heawood 67), and a ‘Unicorn’s Head’. The bull’s head is by far the most frequent: it is found throughout most of the manu­script, starting from the third quire (fols 16–172).16 The unicorn’s head appears in the first gathering, mounts in quires 23–25, before the final parchment quire. Two main hands can be found in the manu­script. A single main scribe, Hand A, writing in Anglicana, is responsible for the Sibling Set Texts and the additional texts.17 The main scribe would also appear to be responsible for rubrications. The rubricator uses similar letter forms and the same set of abbreviations with very similar forms, but the grade is formata grade rather than media. The rubricator also proofread the text and corrected scribal mistakes on several occasions. Parchment flyleaves 1 and 2 are in another hand, Hand B, which is recognizable as more current in appearance and in the use of certain letter forms not used by Hand A. Sections written by the second hand lack rubrication, revealing that they were written after the codex had been decorated.18 The manu­script, with the exception of the last four quires, is among the most decorated in the Sloane Sibling Group after the Second Generation manu­scripts. The decoration includes large initials in blue, red, or a combina14 

Rigg, A Glastonbury Miscellany, p. 1. The general condition of the material is good, but flyleaves and the parchment quire located at the end of the manu­script are somewhat weathered. 16  Cf. Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, pp. 28–29. 17  James describes Hand A as ‘roughly written’, even though it does appear to belong to a professional scribe, The Western Manu­scripts, p. 76. Voigts labels it ‘pointed Anglicana’, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 51. 18  See Honkapohja, ‘The Trinity Seven Planets’, for a more detailed palaeographical analysis of the different hands. 15 

SIBLING GROUP AND CO-ORDINATED BOOK PRODUCTION

45

tion of the two at the beginning of each text, and litterae notabiliores combined with underlining and highlighting strokes as section headings. It also includes coloured ink to fill the urine flasks of the Twenty-Jordan Series, making this one of two codices in the Sibling Group with this kind of illumination. The manu­script is the longest of the three small manu­scripts. In addition to the Sibling Texts, which occupy the first half of the manu­script (fols 1–100), it contains a second half (fols 101–202) with a considerably longer astrological section. This section is mostly in Latin but also includes one Middle English astrological text, which appears to be unique for this manu­script.19 The astrological section is followed by two texts that deal with the medicinal properties of alcohol and preparing medications by infusing herbs with alcohol. The first treatise is called De vinis. It survives in a great number of manu­scripts and printed editions, which attribute it to Arnald of Villanova, a Catalan Dominican and physician (c. 1240–1311)20 — although this identification is dubious.21 The contents include medicinal wines, prepared by steeping herbs and other ingredients into cold or hot wine ‘as a cure for leprosy, paralysis and quotidian and quartan fevers’.22 The Pseudo-Arnaldian work is followed by instructions for making another type of medicinal alcohol, a Latin version of De consideratione quintessentie or the Book of Quintessence, a very influential treatise attributed (in this case, accurately) to another Catalan Franciscan friar, the alchemist and doomsday prophet John of Rupescissa (d. 1366?). The treatise gives instructions for distilling a pure form of alcohol believed to ‘prevent corruption and decay and thus preserve the body from illness and premature aging’.23 The method differs from Pseudo-Arnald’s treatise, as it is based on distilling ‘herbal and animal products repeatedly to extract their quintessences’.24 Whoever compiled the Trinity manu­script supplemented the Sibling Set Text with topics central to fifteenth-century medical concerns: a considerably thicker astrological section and two texts on preparing and using medicinal alcohol. Wear and tear reveals that this little book of medicine, medical astrology, and distillation appears to have been in active use. Some pages are 19 

Edited by Honkapohja as ‘The Trinity Seven Planets’. See Roberts, The Mirror of Alchemy, pp. 37–38. 21  See DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy, and the End of Time, pp. 92–93. 22  DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy, and the End of Time, pp. 92–93. 23  Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, p. 69. For a comprehensive study of Rupescissa, see DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy, and the End of Time. 24  DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy, and the End of Time, p. 93. 20 

46 Chapter 2

worn out, including the double pages containing illustrations, the uroscopy flasks, and the zodiac man, which would have been consulted actively. There are numerous marginal comments, most of which appear to be near contemporary.25 These show that it was used around 1459 and 1460. Hand B added a number of markings, including two dates that appear in relation to astrological calculations: 1460, appearing in the last folio (fol. 200r); and 1459, appearing in a crossed-out marginal comment on fol. 127v.26 As in the case of Boston 19, no codicological details support booklet origin, speculative production, or simultaneous copying, but the additional texts constitute half of the manu­script. Differences in the decoration and writing support indicate that the last two, the treatises on wine and quintessence, may be later additions. The number of lines increases towards the end of the manu­ script, giving the impression that the scribe had to increase the number of lines in order to fit in all of the texts. The fact that quires towards the end are made of different stocks of paper and off-cut parchment adds to this impression.27

The Second Generation of a Family That Grew Prosperous Having discussed the three pocket-sized Siblings, it is now time to turn our attention to two large manu­scripts which Voigts christened the ‘the second generation of a family that has grown prosperous’.28 The Second Generation manu­scripts are large lavishly decorated codices from the late fifteenth century, written in decorative formata-grade book hands, which possibly date from as late as the 1480s or 1490s. Consequently, they belong to the production of traditional books which continued for a couple of decades after Caxton without much change in the volume of the trade.29 25 

A list of contents on the first flyleaf, however, may be as late as seventeenth century. The latter apparently escaped James, who dated the whole manu­script to 1460, an error which was subsequently carried over to later research. However, it is better to take both as signs of provenance rather than composition of the manu­script, concluding it was annotated in 1459–60. For more detailed discussion, see Honkapohja, ‘The Trinity Seven Planets’ and ‘Multilingualism in Trinity College Cambridge Manu­script O.1.77.’ 27  They are also less decorated than earlier parts of the manu­script. The parchment used for the final quire is of rather poor quality and slightly smaller than the paper leaves. Given the small size of the codex, the parchment may have come from off-cuts, which were often even cheaper than paper; Kwakkel, ‘Commercial Organization and Economic Innovation’, p. 186. 28  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 28. 29  Christianson, ‘The Rise of London’s Book Trade’, p. 139. 26 

SIBLING GROUP AND CO-ORDINATED BOOK PRODUCTION

47

Both Cambridge, Gonville and Caius, MS 336/725 and Tokyo, Takamiya Collection, MS 33 appear to have been copied by the same scribe and share diagrams and similar decoration.30 The manu­scripts contain the Sibling Texts, omitting the astrological sections, which they replace with different astrological texts. They also share six texts with each other: two in Latin and four in Middle English, including one which overlaps with the Secretum secretorum tradition.31 In Gonville and Caius 336/725 this sequence of texts appears at the end of the manu­script, while in Takamiya 33 they are at the beginning. Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 336/725 Fols 171. Parchment, in good condition. 241 × 175 mm. Frame ruled 168 × 102 mm, containing an average of thirty-three lines per page. 2008 binding of white leather.32 COLLATION: 18–58, 610, 78–98, 105, 118–38, 144 (last quire of the first part), 158–208, 217, 2210.33 Catchwords on fols 8v, 24v, 32v, 40v, 49v, 56v, 64v, 85v, 92v, 99v, 111v, 119v, 134v, 144v. No catchword in quires 2, 14, 17, 20, and 21. No catchword or signature in quires 9, 10, and 22. The ten leaf quire 6, fol. 41r begins with signature: f alene.

Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 336/725 consists of two parts, the first of which is earlier than the second. Similar ruling, page dimensions, and additional painted decoration make the two parts appear uniform.34 The dual origin also shows in collation. The signatures start anew from a i. on fol. 104r for the second part. They are in Hand B (responsible for the second part of the manu­script) for both the first and the second part. Catchwords, in contrast, are in the same hand as the actual texts for both the first and the second part 30 

Voigts, ‘The Golden Table of Pythagoras’, pp. 127–28. On the Secretum secretorum tradition, see Secretum secretorum, ed. by Manzalaoui. 32  The volume was recently rebound. The binding is of white leather, with very little information about the volume. The writing on the back states the numbers 725 (in red and underlined) and 336 (in black and underlined). A note in the accompanying file at Gonville and Caius Library reads: ‘Rebound by the Cambridge Colleges’ Conservative Consortium November 2008’. James, A Descriptive Catalogue, mentions a ‘Modern binding’, p. 378. 33  My count of the gatherings differs slightly from James, A Descriptive Catalogue, p. 378: ‘18–58 610 (10 canc.?) 78 88 910 (10 canc.) 104 118–38 144 158–208 216 (+1) 2210’. A possible reason for this is the rebinding of 2008. 34  See Voigts, ‘The Golden Table of Pythagoras’, pp. 127–28. 31 

48 Chapter 2

of the manu­script. The earlier part of the manu­script is ‘written in a careful, uniform, textura semiquadrata hand’.35 The second-part hand is in a decorative late Anglicana book hand (or Bastard Anglicana). The hand responsible for the Sloane Sibling Texts is the same as for the second part of the manu­script.36 The Sibling Texts appear in the second part of the manu­script 132v–152v, in Hand B. They are the laxative and purgative remedies, the uroscopies, the Aqua mirabilis, the regimen text, and the three plague treatises; the astrological texts differ somewhat, since there are far more of them, also including a volvelle. The first part of the manu­script contains Guy de Chauliac, several uroscopies, some physiognomy, and astrology, including the Golden Table of Pythagoras edited by Voigts.37 The vast majority of texts in this codex are in Middle English, including all of Part 1. The Sloane Sibling Texts are in Part 2, which also contains one two-page treatise with the incipit ‘formalis mundi machina’. The manu­script is much more lavishly decorated than the earlier Sibling Group manu­scripts, with gilt initials as well as yellow highlights on litterae notabiliores. The artist(s) responsible for decorating the second part of the manu­script supplied painted decoration over the earlier part and the two now appear quite uniform.38 Rubrics which are used as subheadings in many texts (e.g., Aqua mirabilis) seem to have been written at the same time as the main text, and possibly by the same scribe. Red markings are sometimes visible under the blue ones, from which it can be deduced that the order was: black, red, blue. In spite of being more elaborate, the decoration of some pages (e.g., the uroscopy text, fol. 141v) resembles other Sibling Group manu­scripts, showing that they are descended from the same family of texts. The manu­script has a number of practical illustrations, including astrological charts, and a volvelle for making astrological calculations. Notwithstanding the fact that uroscopy tracts are particularly well represented in this codex, the pictures of urine flasks, or jordans, are not in coloured ink, only shaded in green 35  Voigts, ‘The Golden Table of Pythagoras’, p. 128. The hand that can be found in many of the texts in the earlier part of the manu­script is a very careful book hand, characterized by twocompartment a’s, book-hand m’s, n’s, and i’s, short r, and a single-compartment g. 36  The hand, while still a book hand, is characterized by looped ascenders for l’s and h’s, a greater number of single-compartment a’s (while two-compartment a’s can still be found), small r’s, single-compartment g’s. The scribe can be identified by a distinctive diagonal duct that is visible in downwards strokes on the small e or left upward slanting ascenders for d’s. 37  Voigts, ‘The Golden Table of Pythagoras’. 38  James describes the decorations as ‘fairly good English ornament’ in A  Descriptive Catalogue, p. 378.

SIBLING GROUP AND CO-ORDINATED BOOK PRODUCTION

49

by the artist responsible for the decoration. The manu­script has been annotated extensively. Many of these are made by hands that are sixteenth century or later.39 Tokyo, Takamiya Collection, MS 33 Fols 63. Parchment, in good condition. 240 × 159–60 mm. Frame ruled 165 × 97 mm, containing an average of thirty-three lines per page. 2008 binding of white leather.

The other Second Generation codex is Tokyo, Takamiya Collection, MS 33. It was sold to Japan in a Christie’s auction on 8 November 1978, and in 2013 it was donated for long-term deposit to the Beinecke Library in Yale.40 The manu­ script is of a similar size to Gonville and Caius 336/725, and Voigts refers to the two as ‘twin manu­scripts’.41 However, the manu­script is shorter as it contains only sixty-three leaves. Like Gonville and Caius 336/725, it is written on parchment, containing thirty-three lines per page, and is more decorated than the rest of the group manu­scripts, having painted and gilt initials and decorated borders.42 Another similarity with Gonville and Caius 336/725 is that despite the lavish decoration in the Twenty-Jordan Series, uroscopy flasks are not illustrated in coloured ink. The contents include items belonging to the Secretum secretorum family.43 As in the Gonville and Caius manu­script, the Sloane Sibling Texts are placed near the end, but they are followed by a Middle English treatise, which lists different medical ingredients based on their quality (hot, cold, moist, dry), and a Latin text, which lists different symbols that can appear in dreams and explains their meaning. The majority of the items in the codex are in Middle English, but the dream text and two short astrological treatises are in Latin. 39 

It was part of the collection bequeathed to Gonville and Caius College in 1659 by William Moore, a fellow of the College and the university librarian from 1615 to 1647. His private collection of books ‘consisted originally of nearly 150 volumes, a few of which are especially distinguished for age or beauty’; James, A Descriptive Catalogue, p. viii. 40  It is the only manu­script that I was not able to examine, apart from a microfilm surrogate in the British Library. I therefore rely on Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, and Takamiya, ‘A Handlist of Western Medi­e val Manu­scripts’. I also keep the codicological description very short. 41  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 27. 42  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 50. 43  Takamiya, ‘A Handlist of Western Medi­eval Manu­scripts’, p. 428.

50 Chapter 2

London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320: The Key to the Group Fols  93. Paper, with one parchment leaf, in fairly good condition. 215 × 137 mm. Frame 122 /130 × 72/95 mm, containing twenty-eight to fifty lines per page. COLLATION: 1–210, 36–1, 48, 5–610, 74, 810–1, 98–2, 104–1, 1110, 1212–1.

The final codex which we discuss as part of the Sibling Group, London, British Library MS  Sloane 2320, is central to Voigts’s identification of the VoigtsSloane Group, since it links the Sibling and Core groups, as it contains the Sibling Texts copied in the characteristic mise-en-page of the Core Group. Like other manu­scripts belonging to the Core Group, it is a quarto-sized paper manu­script in a modern British Library binding. The inscription on the spine reads 97. TRACTATUS MEDICINAE. BRITISH LIBRARY. SLOANE MS 2320.44 The manu­script is on paper with the exception of a single parchment leaf: fol. 21. The pages are 215 × 137 mm, with a single-column text block of 122 /130 × 72/95 mm. The Sibling Texts occupy the first three quires (fols 1–24). They are followed by a table of contents on fol. 25 which is in the same hand as the following text attributed to Roger Bacon (fol. 30). It lists a number of Baconian items but corresponds with the codex only partially. Texts that are in the volume are PseudoBacon’s Summaria expositio epistola predicate (fol. 30); a copy of De vinis attributed to Arnald of Villanova (fols 32r–54r); a short anonymous text labelled Pillulis contra pestilenciam (fol. 55r); another anonymous treatise on Unguentum sompniferum (fol. 55v); a second Pseudo-Baconian treatise on ageing, De retardatio accidentium senectutis (fols  56–64); The Book of Secrets attributed to Albertus Magnus, here called De arte magicali tractatus (fols 65–68); a PseudoHippocratic treatise labelled Liber de veritate Hypocratis (fols 70–72); and John of Rupescissa’s Book of Quintessence, here attributed to Roger Bacon with the title De famulatu philosophiae (fols 73–93). All of the texts are in Latin with the exception of the Middle English items, belonging to the Sibling Set Texts. Unlike the other Sloane Siblings, Sloane 2320 can be identified as a fascicular production based on a number of codicological features listed by Robinson and Hanna.45 Because of the central importance of this manu­script, I will discuss all of the booklets with tables and a transparent description of the features used to identify them. 44 

The binding is slightly newer than for Sloane 1118 and Sloane 1313. See Chapter 1 above; Robinson, ‘The “Booklet”’, pp. 47–48; and Hanna, ‘Booklets in Medi­eval Manu­scripts’, pp. 107–08. 45 

SIBLING GROUP AND CO-ORDINATED BOOK PRODUCTION

51

Booklet A Table 2. Contents of Booklet A in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320. Quires

Material

Watermarks

Catchwords

1 ; fols 1–10

paper

scissors, Heawood 73

sine labore corporis 1–5 (matches fol. 11r, quire 2)

Sloane Sibling 1–5

210; fols 11–20

paper

scissors, Heawood 73

Sol (matches fol. 21, quire 3)

Sloane Sibling 6–10

36–1; fols 21–24

fol. 21 scissors, parchment, Heawood 73 paper

10

Signed

b 1–5

Texts

Astrological tables, one empty leaf

1–4

The first three quires, which contain the Sibling Texts, can be very clearly identified as an independent codicological unit. To begin with, they are more decorated, having red and blue initials, which are absent from the rest of the manu­script. Coloured ink is used for the urine flasks and for the illustration of the zodiac man, which has a pink skin tone and green ink for the ground he stands on.46 Variation in the style of decoration for different parts of the manu­script is one of the booklet features listed above (feature 3). The rest of the manu­script is not decorated, although some texts have unused empty space for decorated initials. Other features that suggest an independent booklet are the absence of a catchword at the end of quire 3 (feature 4); an independent set of quire signatures which differ from the rest of the manu­script (feature 5); soiled or rubbed outer leaves for the first and the third quire, but not for the second (feature 6); a variation in the number of leaves used to form a quire, in that quire 4 is shorter than the first two (feature 9); blank leaves at the end of quires; and short filler texts added in later hands (feature 10).47 The quire also has an independent set of watermarks. These, in addition to the list of contents (see Figure 7) at the 46 

The coloured jordans in the Sloane Sibling Text are glossed in English by a later hand: ‘somewhat redd’ under ‘Rubicunda’, and ‘reddish yellow’ under ‘Rufa’. The illustration of the zodiac man in Sloane 2320 bears some resemblance to the one in the barber surgeons manu­ scripts: Irma Taavitsainen and Peter Murray Jones, personal communication, October 2010. 47  These include some pen trials, and a partly blurred name, which may read Iohannem Linsay(?).

52 Chapter 2

beginning of the fourth quire, very clearly indicate that the Sibling Set Texts constitute an independent booklet. Booklet B Table 3. Contents of Booklet B in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320. Quires

Material Watermarks

48; fols 25–31 (+ one unnumbered leaf between fol. 27 and fol. 28)

paper

Catchwords

Signed aa.2–aa.4

Booklet B contains: –– A table of contents, fol. 25v; –– Pseudo-Bacon: summaria expositio epistole (a part of De retardatione accidentium senectutis); eTK: 1361M; fols 26r–29v; –– fol. 30 empty; –– scribbles in English in a non-professional hand, fols 30v–31r. The second codicological unit (fols 25–31) begins with the table of contents shown in Figure 7, which lists several texts attributed to Roger Bacon. It is in the same hand as the text that follows it, a section from a Pseudo-Baconian treatise on ageing, known as De retardatione accidentium senectutis which also matches the first item in the list of contents. This unit also has some booklet characteristics, but cannot be identified as an independent booklet as easily as A or the following C. It has an independent set of quire signatures, but not catchwords as it consists of only one quire. A watermark is visible on fol. 30, but it is hidden by the binding and difficult to identify. There are some empty leaves and scribbles in later hands, including love poetry in English written in a non-professional hand on fol. 31v. Scribbles in an early modern hand on the last leaf of the booklet spell the name Francys Staplere(?) twice.48 The presence of the list of contents suggests that it may have been part of an earlier Baconian codex or a number of other texts which the person who commissioned the Core Group thought were by Bacon. The text contained in this booklet is one chapter from the longer work De retardatione accidentium senectutis, commonly attributed to Bacon but most 48 

Schoenberg Database of Manu­scripts lists ‘Francis Stuplero(?)’ as possible provenance for the manu­script, in addition to Sir Hans Sloane.

SIBLING GROUP AND CO-ORDINATED BOOK PRODUCTION

53

Figure 7. A list of contents in London, British Library, MS Sloane, fol. 25v. © The British Library Board.

probably written by ‘Dominus Castri goet’.49 The work is in epistolary form, which is typical for instructional texts, and the letter seems originally have been addressed to the pope.50 It contains instructions concerned with ‘maintaining vigor and prolonging life […], focusing […] on methods of maintaining the good health of youth and of slowing the advance of old age’.51 The version in Sloane 2320 is a shorter version, which according to the editors, Andrew Little and Edward Withington, forms a class by itself, as it is textually independent of the longer version.52 It purports to contain a summary of hidden information which the author found searching through ‘all the libraries of the Latins’ and 49  Everest and Tavormina, ‘On Tarrying the Accidents of Age’, p. 134. See also Williams, ‘Roger Bacon and his Edition’; Paraviciani Bagliani, ‘Ruggero Bacone autore del De retardatione accidentium senectutis?’. 50  Bacon, De retardatione accidentium, ed. by Little and Withington; the editors call Sloane 2320 ‘A miscellaneous collection of (18) medical treatises. The only one which concerns us here is 12 (fols 27–9) “Summaria exposicio epistole predicte continentis xj capitula secundum Rogerum Bacun” [No. 15 fols 56–64 contains the beginning of the Epistola, ending with the words “Preterea in vnoquoque membro” in Cap. 2 (p. 20, l. 23 below)]’, p. xvi. 51  Everest and Tavormina, ‘On Tarrying the Accidents of Age’, pp. 134–35. 52  According to the editors of Bacon, De retardatione accidentium, ed. by Little and Withington, pp. xviii–xix, the treatise is found in two other manu­scripts, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 6978 and Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 4091. According to them, the Paris manu­script ‘supplies a good text, and is earlier than any other of the MSS.’ The Vatican manu­script, however, ‘is independent of P [Paris] but is a thoroughly slovenly piece of work: the scribe had a genius for catching the wrong catchword’. They make no comment on how Sloane 2320 is related to the two (pp. 84–89).

54 Chapter 2

‘many writings of the Easterns’,53 including examples of oils that can be used to maintain natural heat and moisture of the human body, discussion of animals that live long — such as a wonderful stag mentioned by Julius Caesar, which cannot die of old age (fol. 28v) — and finishing with foods that promote a long life (fol. 29r).54 The treatise belongs to a genre of literature on ‘“secrets” dealing with the marvellous properties, real or imagined, of beasts, herbs, stones, and the human body’, which ‘gained great popularity during the Middle Ages’,55 also exemplified by the Secreta secretorum tradition, which Pseudo-Bacon uses extensively as source, believing it to be by Aristotle. Other sources are predominantly Arabic.56 Alchemy is mentioned in fol. 26r ‘de hac intencione loqui quosdam methaforice velut tractare in arte alkimica consuerunt’ — making a mention of the practice of alchemists to cloak their secrets in metaphoric language.57 Booklet C Booklet C contains: –– Pseudo-Arnald of Villanova: De vinis; eTK: 310C; fols 32r–54r; Incipit: cum instat tempus in quo medicinalia. –– De pillulis contra pestilenciam; fol. 55r; –– Vnguentum sompniferum; fol. 55v. The third codicological unit contains a part of the same treatise as the Trinity manu­script, the treatise called De vinis, attributed to Arnald of Villanova. The Pseudo-Arnaldian treatise is followed by recipes for making Pillulis contra pes53 

Bacon, De retardatione accidentium, ed. by Little and Withington, p. 84. The text was deemed to be a ‘grievous disappointment’ by Little and Withington (in Bacon, De retardatione accidentium, p. xlii), who believed it to be by Bacon; the different versions of the treatise ‘show want of originality, and close dependence on authorities he might have known were at best second hand, a simple faith in the marvellous power of remedies, most of which had been used for centuries with no remarkable results, and sometimes a pretence of secret knowledge which reminds us painfully of the alchemic quacks and mystics of a later age’. 55  The Book of Secrets of Albertus Magnus, ed. by Best and Brightman, p. xi. 56  See Bacon, De retardatione accidentium, ed. by Little and Withington, pp. xxxiii–xxxiv, for a summary of them. 57  According to Everest and Tavormina, ‘On Tarrying the Accidents of Age’ (p. 136), this ‘creates the aura of secrecy in the text is the obfuscation of simple substances through metaphors and allusions’ — a trick typical of alchemical and occult language. 54 

SIBLING GROUP AND CO-ORDINATED BOOK PRODUCTION

55

Table 4. Contents of Booklet C in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320. Quires

Material Watermarks Catchwords

510; paper fols 32–41

Badly hidden Vinum propter by binding (matches fol. 42r; quire 6)

Signed Texts a.–a.v.

Arnald of Villanova, De vinis, fols 32r–54r

paper 610; fols 42–51

b.1–b.5. Arnald continued de vino sene de vino f (partly matches the first line of fol. 52r, vinum de sene)

74; paper fols 52–55

c.–c.4

Explicit Arnald, fol. 54r, f54v empty, pillulis contra pestilenciam fol. 55

tilenciam, ‘pills against the pestilence’, and Vnguentum sompniferum, ‘an ointment to bring sleep’, which are both in Latin. Like A, these quires contain a number of features which are characteristic of independent booklets, including independent signatures, a shorter final quire, and catchwords that appear on the first two quires but not on the third one. As the list of contents on fol. 25v does not mention the contents of these three quires, it would appear that they have been inserted as an independent booklet between Units B and D, which contain two different copies of De retardatione accidentium senectutis.58 The treatise on wines is a lengthy extract, although not the complete treatise. Its contents complement the previous Pseudo-Baconian treatise, at least partly, as among the medicinal wines listed in this extract is a wine against ageing (fol. 52r). There are two points of overlap with the Sibling Set Text. The treatise on wines contains instructions for mixing medicinal alcohol called aqua ardens (fol. 53v), for which there are instructions in the Sibling Set Text. It also contains a short recipe, introduced with the heading ‘De pillulis contra pestilenciam’ written in the characteristic display script. This recipe is related to a tradition that is also found in the John of Burgundy treatises, both the long version and the epistolary version, in which it is known as Pillule Rasis, after the Persian physician Ar-Rāzī (Rhazes). However, the recipe in Booklet C is a 58 

Since the treatise is identified as ‘tractatus magistri Arnaldi de villa noua’ in the explicit (fol. 54r), it seems very unlikely that the compiler of the list of contents would have mistaken it for a Baconian treatise.

56 Chapter 2

longer version, in which the recipe is followed by more detailed instructions for using the pills and promises that they will also delay the onset of old age ‘tardant senectutem’ (fol. 55r). Moreover, the version of the Pseudo-Arnaldian De vinis does not overlap with the Trinity manu­script. Both are short extracts from different parts of the treatise, and consequently do not provide a further connection between Sloane 2320 and the extra items in the Trinity manu­script.59 Booklet D Table 5. Contents of Booklet D in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320. Quires

Material

Watermarks

8

paper

Bull’s head (lacking St Andrew’s Cross)

; fols 56–64

10–1

Catchwords

Signed a.j–a.5

Booklet D contains: –– Pseudo-Bacon: De accidentibus senectutis et senii; eTK: 0463C; fols 56r–64v; Incipit: Domine mundi qui ex bina nobili stirpe originem. The fourth codicological unit contains a different version of the PseudoBaconian work on ageing found in Booklet  B. The booklet consists of one quire of ten, signed a.j to a.5. The matching item seems to be ‘Alius Tractatus eiusdem . de retardacione senectutis’ (see Figure 7). Like B, this unit is not as easily identifiable as an individual booklet as A and C are. As the Baconian text matches the list of contents, it seems likely that this was part of the same Baconian codex as Booklet B, into which the independent booklets A and C were inserted. The quire contains several different watermarks, including scissors (fol. 56, Heawood 73), which match Booklet A in this manu­script, and a Bull’s head (fol. 63), which matches Sloane 1313. The version of the Pseudo-Baconian treatise found in this codicological unit belongs to what the editors call the ‘long version’, but it only contains the beginning of the treatise, ending in the middle of its second chapter.60 The contents include the address of the treatise to ‘domine mundi’ (fol. 56r), the 59 

I am grateful to Patrick Gifreu for helping me with the identification of the passage, personal communication, 2011. 60  Little and Withington (Bacon, De retardatione accidentium, p. xvi), note: ‘fols 56–64 contain the beginning of the Epistola, ending with the words “Preterea in vnoquoque membro” in Cap. 2 (p. 20, l. 23 below)].’ For their edition of the treatise, see pp. 1–83.

SIBLING GROUP AND CO-ORDINATED BOOK PRODUCTION

57

pope, stating that three things are necessary to ensure the long reign of a ruler: maintenance of justice, observance of the laws of health, and knowledge of the means of preserving youth, which will be addressed in the treatise. The section included concentrates on theory, including discussion of the various processes that lead to the decay of the human body according to the humoral theory. The extract differs from the short version in Booklet B by its focus on theory, and not including actual remedies for ageing. Booklet E Table 6. Contents of Booklet E in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320. Quires

Material

Watermarks

Catchwords

98–2; fols 65–69 date 1454 on fol. 65r

paper

Bull’s head

j–iiij

Signed

Booklet E contains: Pseudo-Albertus Magnus: De arte magicali tractatus; eTK: 1486A; fols 65r–69v; Incipit: sicut vult philosophus.

The fifth codicological unit in this manu­script contains an extract from another treatise, in the same genre of ‘secrets’ literature as the Pseudo-Baconian treatises in Booklets B and D, attributed to Bacon’s contemporary Albertus Magnus (St Albert the Great or Albertus Teutonicus, 1200–80), who was a Swabian Dominican theologian and philosopher whose literary output consisted nearly exclusively of commentaries on Aristotle, but who acquired considerable posthumous reputation as a magician and alchemist.61 The work survives in a ‘great many manu­scripts from as early as the twelfth century’ and ‘continued to be copied, anthologized, translated, and printed’ into the Elizabethan and Stuart periods.62 An early modern English translation (from 1550) is edited by Michael Best and Frank Brightman, who consider the only connection to Albertus Magnus to be that the work borrowed one section taken from a lapidary written by Albertus.63 61 

Roberts, The Mirror of Alchemy, pp. 17, 31–33. On Albert’s reputation as a magician, see Collins, ‘Albertus, or Magic, Natural Philosophy, and Religious Reform’. 62  The Book of Secrets of Albertus Magnus, ed. by Best and Brightman, pp. xi–xii. 63  The Book of Secrets of Albertus Magnus, ed. by Best and Brightman, p. xiv.

58 Chapter 2

The booklet now contains only one quire of six leaves, but the signatures run from j to iiij, so it would seem likely that a few leaves were removed from the end. The extract is from the beginning of the work and includes an introduction, which argues that magic by itself is not good or bad but like any other discipline can be used for good or evil ends. The treatise also includes the herbal part, which lists sixteen herbs with their names and properties.64 This booklet is the only one in this manu­script to mention a year. A note in the top margin mentions it was copied in 1454, which is the earliest date for any Core Group manu­script. Because of the fascicular nature of this codex, it cannot be generalized for the entire manu­script. Booklet F Table 7. Contents of Booklet F in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320. Quires

Material

Watermarks

104–1; fols 70–72

paper

Mounts, Heawood 67

Catchwords

Signed a.1–a.2

Booklet F contains: –– Pseudo-Hippocrates: Secreta Hypocratis (incomplete); eTK: 0301M; fols 70r–71r; Incipit: Pervenit ad nos quod cum Ypocras. –– An early modern poem about Cromwell, fol. 72r. The sixth codicological unit in the manu­script is even shorter than E, consisting of a single quire of four, but it is missing one leaf. It contains a fragment of a work called Liber de veritate Hypocratis in the incipit. This treatise, which may have been translated by Gerard of Cremona, mainly circulated on the continent.65 It begins with the claim that it was found in the grave of Hippocrates 64 

See The Book of Secrets of Albertus Magnus, ed. by Best and Brightman, pp. xiii–xiv, for a list of contents of the full work. 65  eTK lists manu­scripts in France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, and Italy, in addition to only one other manu­script: Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 117 (165), fol. 220r–v (thirteenth century). Paris and Munich are particularly well represented among the continental repositories, which include Basel, fol. 130r–v; Basel, Universitätsbibliothek D.I.11; Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Codex Latinus Monacensis 615, fols 49v–50v (thirteenth century); Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 1024, fol. 164r–v (fourteenth century); Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Codex Latinus Monacensis 683, fols 52v–55v; Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS Lat. 6893, fols 293–95 (thirteenth century); Paris, Bibliothèque

SIBLING GROUP AND CO-ORDINATED BOOK PRODUCTION

59

and lists various signs of ageing and symptoms from which it can be deduced that death is at hand when sick. Leaves 71v–72v are empty but do display the frame ruling that is characteristic of the Core Group manu­scripts. They have been filled with later scribbles in English, including a poem which attacks [Thomas] Cromwell.66 This codicological unit displays some of the characteristics of booklets, including an independent set of signatures, but, like a number of others, it could also be described as a fragment rather than a textually self-sufficient booklet. Booklet G Table 8. Contents of Booklet G in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320. Quires

Material Watermarks

Catchwords

11 ; fols 73–82

paper

unicorns

et ignem (matches fol. 83r, quire 12) a.j–4

12

paper

unicorns

10

; fols 83–93

12–1

Signed bj–biiiiij

Booklet G contains: –– John of Rupescissa:67 Quintessence; eTK: 0458A; fols 73–93; Incipit: Dixit Salamon. The final codicological unit in the manu­script contains a work introduced as de famulatu philosophiae, which is here assigned to Roger Bacon (‘Hic primus liber Fratris rogeri Bacon ordinis sancti francissi de famulatu philosophie’, fol. 73r) but is really the Book of Quintessence by John of Rupescissa.68 The text nationale de France, MS Lat. 7406, fols 178v–179v (thirteenth century); Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Codex Latinus Monacensis 182, fol.  298r (fifteenth century); Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 2303, fol. 65 (fourteenth century); Brussels, Bibliothèque royale, 8487, fols 15–16 (thirteenth century); Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS Lat. 7046, fols  178–79 (thirteenth century); Erfurt, Universitäts- und Forschungsbibliothek Erfurt/Gotha, Amplonian Collection fol. 250, fol. 212r–v (thirteenth to fifteenth centuries). 66  It is likely that the Cromwell, referred to by surname, is Thomas rather than Oliver. The poem itself is rather vague in its rejoicing of the death of ‘wykked cromwell’ and does not give many details on which to base the identification. However, the somewhat clumsy Secretary hand in which it is written would be very old fashioned in the latter half of the seventeenth century, and the text speaks of his ‘councell’, which is more appropriate of the earlier Cromwell, as is the implication of a sudden death. 67  Here attributed to Roger Bacon. 68  The treatise could not be by Bacon (d. 1292), since the substance quintessence, as well

60 Chapter 2

begins with religious discussion before proceeding to revealing its ‘secrets’: the first one of which is how the substance will prevent the human body from corrupting. It discusses ageing at length, which fits in with the theme of the volume. It then proceeds to discussion of the fifth element. Despite the attribution to Bacon, the text does not appear to be listed in the list of contents in Figure 7 (unless the person who wrote it confused it with Errorum medicorum, which seems highly unlikely). The booklet consists of two large quires, which can be identified as belonging together by signatures and catchwords. The writing frame in this part is slightly taller (133 × 93 mm) than for most of the Core Group (120–30 × 72–95 mm) but smaller than for Booklet A in Sloane 2948. This codicological unit conforms to many of the booklet features, including the signatures and catchwords mentioned above. The first and final leaves of both of the quires display some wear, suggesting they may have been in an unbound state for some time. Booklets and Ageing in Sloane 2320 In conclusion, there is strong evidence for fascicular production for this manu­ script, especially since the above list includes all three of the features which Hanna considers as ranking highest in terms of persuasiveness: 5, 8 and 9.69 Most importantly, the first three quires, which contain the Sibling Texts, can be identified as an independent booklet with absolute certainty. This reduces the connection between the Sibling and the Core Group from a single codex to a single booklet. The case is not equally strong for two other codicological units. Booklets B and D, which contain versions of Pseudo-Bacon’s De retardatione accidentium senectutis, may have been part of a longer Baconian codex and listed in the table of contents on fol. 25v. Since there is a mismatch between the table of contents and the texts included, it is possible that someone disturbed the order of the volume by adding other booklets to the Core Group mise-en-page. Both B and D do, however, satisfy the main booklet criterion proposed by Robinson, textual self-sufficiency, and it is possible that they originated as independent booklets as well. It is within the range of possibility that the codex was composed by several scribes working separately on the quires, but textual self-sufficiency is a feature as the name, were invented by Rupescissa (fl. 1350), who lived after him. 69  See Hanna, ‘Booklets in Medi­eval Manu­scripts’, p. 110.

SIBLING GROUP AND CO-ORDINATED BOOK PRODUCTION

61

of booklet manu­scripts rather than ‘farmed out’ manu­scripts, and the codicological units in Sloane 2320 consist of self-sufficient texts rather than a longer text split into several stints. Moreover, the manu­script does not display the kind of purposefulness on the codex level as the Chaucer and Gower manu­scripts examined by Doyle and Parkes. On the contrary, a modern binding, differences between the table of contents and the actual composition of the volume may mean that the current volume was only bound together after the Middle Ages, using booklets from a collection of works by Roger Bacon and other booklets which were not part of this Baconian codex. The works contained within the volume do display some thematic unity. In addition to the attribution of a number of texts to Roger Bacon, many of the texts deal with ageing and resisting its harmful effects by dietary as well as various magical and alchemical means. They are evidence of interest in ‘means of prolonging life’ which ‘remained a subject of interest to members of the English social and intellectual elites’. In addition to royalty and the pope (the addressee of De retardatione accidentium senectutis), these elites increasingly included ‘also aristocrats, university-educated physicians, clergy, and other persons of authority’.70 The Pseudo-Baconian treatise (Booklets B and D) lists animals and plants that live long, and contains discussion on the physiological processes of ageing. The long extract from Arnald of Villanova on wines (Booklet C) contains a wine that ‘has the ability to prolong human life’ as it ‘strengthens by its own virtue the substance of the heart and thus keeps people young’.71 The pills against pestilence (Booklet C) have the side effect of making old age more bearable. The Pseudo-Hippocratic treatise (Booklet G) lists symptoms of ageing and signs of impending death. And, of course, the virtues of the magnificent substance that is quintessence include preventing corruption of the human body (Booklet F). This brings us to the question: how much of an outlier are the Sibling Set Texts and Booklet A? The higher grade of decoration makes the first booklet stand out from the much plainer booklets that come after it. However, textually some of the items in the anthology do match the contents of the volume. In particular, the regimen of health (Text 6) and the recipes for making aqua ardens (Texts 5 and 7), whose health benefits include preserving the natural youthfulness of the human body, do not feel out of place with the rest of Sloane 2320. The ‘secrets’ tradition, exemplified by the Pseudo-Baconian and PseudoAlbertian treatises, may include magic and alchemy, but the texts also place 70  71 

Tavormina, ‘Roger Bacon: Two Extracts’, p. 336. DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy, and the End of Time, p. 93.

62 Chapter 2

considerable emphasis on regulating the diet, like their ‘more down-to-earth regiminal cousins’.72 Notably, the Set Text regimen begins with these words, ‘Aristoteles autem scribens alexandro magno ait: O Alexander cum sit homo corpus corruptibile. visum est mihi scribere vtilia ex secretis artis medicine’,73 making an explicit reference to ‘secrets’. It can thus be concluded that while Booklet A stands out codicologically as an independent unit, textually the Sibling Set Texts seem to have ended within these covers for a reason.

The Commercial Book Trade and the Sibling Group Based on the quality of the workmanship, all Sibling Group manu­scripts appear to be professional work. Two of them are deluxe items, the rest display good craftsmanship. The material is paper for Trinity O.1.77, Boston 19, and Sloane 2320. Sloane 3566 is on parchment, as are the two post-medieval codices Gonville and Caius 336/725 and Takamiya 33, which is unusual for medical manu­scripts from as late as the 1480s or 90s, and suggests that they were up-market items. All of the manu­scripts have some decorated initials as well as decorations in the margins, normally the job of a specialist and charged for separately, especially for more deluxe productions.74 In the case of the Boston manu­script, the scribe seems to have done the rubrication himself. The other two Siblings, Sloane 3566 and Trinity O.1.77, have more decoration, but in both cases the scribe may have also supplied the rubrics. Comparing the codicological evidence to the checklist for speculative production, very little in the Sibling Group manu­scripts suggests that they would have been compiled for speculative sale rather than originated as individual commissions. The quality and format of illuminations vary from manu­script to manu­script and do not display the type of similarity that would result from ‘assembly-line’ production in a scriptorium. Size, watermarks, and binding also display considerable variation, indicating that no single supervising agency exerted authority over the compilation of these books. Moreover, the evidence that we have for the compilation of the Boston manu­script seems to refer to a prior bespoke commission to William Ebesham by John Paston. 72 

Tavormina, ‘Roger Bacon: Two Extracts’, p. 335. According to The Book of Secrets of Albertus Magnus, ed. by Best and Brightman, p. xi, associating the work with a famous name like Aristotle or Alexander the Great is a feature of secrets literature, and a trait which the Set Text regimen shares with both the Book of Secrets and the Secretum secretorum tradition. 74  See Doyle, ‘The Work of a Late-Fifteenth Century English Scribe’, p. 303, and Partridge, ‘Designing the Page’. 73 

SIBLING GROUP AND CO-ORDINATED BOOK PRODUCTION

63

Three things are relevant for this study. First, neither the scribe nor the commissioner, Sir John Paston, were medical practitioners. Second, Ebesham appears to have handled the whole commission himself, including adding the rubrications to all the texts he copied. Third, an exemplar of the Sibling Texts, in their standard order, was available for Ebesham at Westminster Abbey in 1468. We do not know whether Ebesham got the exemplar from Paston’s intermediary or whether it was available in Westminster, but what can be said is that the Sibling Set Texts did constitute a standard exemplar, an anthology of medical texts, which was used by various professional scribes. This standard anthology could either be used on its own, as in the Boston manu­script, or combined with other medical texts, as in Sloane 3566 and Trinity O.1.77 or two Second Generation manu­scripts. In Sloane 2320 the Sibling Texts occupy three quires, which constitute Booklet A, now at the beginning of the codex. As this booklet forms the only link between the Sibling Group and the Core Group, I am inclined to think that the Sibling manu­ scripts and the Core manu­scripts have different origins and that it is the Sibling manu­scripts that exhibit the most important quality of books produced for a commercial market: reproduction of copies of the same text. Use of a standard exemplar is characteristic of scriptoria and speculative production (see Chapter 2), but without other codicological features to support it, the evidence is not sufficient to identify the Sibling Group as either a scriptorium or a speculative product. Moreover, the production of six codices whose physical appearance varies considerably does not quite qualify as mass production in comparison to the Ghent-Bruges books of hours, which survive in hundreds. The Core Group, in contrast, contains very little textual overlap (an exception to this is the appearance of the Sibling Texts in Sloane 2320, the two versions of texts attributed to Arnald of Villanova and Roger Bacon in Sloane 1118) which points to a different rationale behind their compilation. They may have been commissioned by an individual or institution that wanted a library of medical, scientific, and magical works in a similar format. It is likely that the Sibling Texts in Sloane 2320 represented just another strand of medical works in circulation which the compiler(s) wanted to include in his library, and so he commissioned or copied them as a booklet of three quires.

Chapter 3

The Core Group: Manu­script Descriptions, ­ ion, Booklet Construct and Evidence of Origin

I

f the Core Group represents the efforts of an individual or institution collecting a library of medical, scientific, and magical works in a standard format, what other texts did he, she, or they include, and how rigidly standard was the standard format? In Sloane 2320, the Sibling Set Text is found alongside texts on ageing or the secrets of nature, often attributed to Roger Bacon. A similar pattern can be observed in other members of the group. Quires written in the Core Group layout are found in thematic volumes, which typically consist of smaller codicological units. There is evidence of compilers accommodating the length of the unit to the text(s), which is characteristic of fascicular manu­scripts, but there is also considerable variation. The current chapter contains a detailed description of all these units, moving through the Group in numerical order and beginning with Sloane 1118, a thick alchemical codex. The manu­scripts are presented with an appropriate level of detail for each codex. Most detail is devoted to Sloane 1118, where quire diagrams are necessary, as many of the quires have been extended, making its collation very complicated.

Chapter 3

66

London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118 Fols 154. Paper, in varying condition. 205 × 140 mm. Frame 120/125 × 72/80 mm, containing an average of thirty-three to thirty-five lines per page, although there is considerable variation among different quires.

Sloane 1118 is one of the three Core Group codices in which the majority of folios display typical Sloane Core layout. It contains the longest section in the Core Group layout (fols 15r–147r), as well as quires at the beginning and end which are not in the Group layout and which contain alchemical recipes and observations in English. The manu­script is in a typical British Library binding of leather and cardboard, labelled 88. TREATISES ON ALCHEMY, ETC. BRIT. MUS. SLOANE MS 1118. As the label indicates, the contents of the manu­script are mainly alchemical and attributed to now dead authorities in possession of ‘fuller or more pristine’ knowledge of ‘the distant past’.1 This is a hefty volume, and the list of authorities is equally long and impressive, including, for example, Roger Bacon, Arnald of Villanova, Arnaldus Grecus, John of Rupescissa, John Dastin, John Pauper, Artephius, Vincent of Beauvais, Geber (Pseudo-Jābir), and Ramón Llull, most of whom had little to do with the treatises bearing their name. A sixteenth-century Secretary hand added lists of contents to fol. 147v and fol. 154r. Below the list on fol. 147v, it wrote: ‘These workis aforesaid ar contained in the later part of this book’, which is shown as Figure 8. The contents of the lists do not match the present volume, but an earlier set of page numbers is visible on some leaves. The earlier numbering has been ruled out on some pages. On others, the top corners of leaves have been clipped, presumably to get rid of the earlier numbering. The ones that remain correspond with items listed in the lists of contents. We can deduce from this that the booklets in the manu­ script were in the same covers in the sixteenth century. The numbers extend to quires 1–15, which are not in the Core Group layout, so it would appear that they too were part of the codex at the time. Several lists of contents indicate an ongoing process of collecting alchemical treatise texts, and this is also the impression one gets when looking at the volume. It is a plain-looking utilitarian manu­script, typical of the Core Group. Another typical Core Group feature is the decoration in Sloane 1118, which is rare. Some quires contain red and blue initials that are more common in the Sibling Group. These appear more often in latter part of the codex (booklets and codicological units I to P), which contains longer treatises that are attrib1 

Roberts, Mirror of Alchemy, pp. 13–14.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

67

Figure 8. The sixteenth-century list of contents in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118, fol. 147v. © The British Library Board.

uted to named authorities. The earlier part of the manu­script contains alchemical recipes and observations which are anonymous and undecorated. There are also a number of practical illustrations. Booklet D includes pictures of furnaces and alchemical instruments, and fol. 112r contains charts related to the text that follows it, ars sintrillia.2 There are some sigils of planets in the margins: fol. 38v contains a key to them in a darker ink, which appears to be a later addition. In addition to being the longest manu­script in the Sloane core layout, Sloane 1118 is also by far the most complicated in terms of collation, consisting of quires of uneven length.3 The manu­script contains several empty leaves 2 

The treatise is presumed lost by Nicholas H. Clulee, who mentions that John Dee made a reference to a work called Ars sintrillia in 1556, but: ‘this portion of the manu­script is now missing and no other work with the title Ars sintrillia has, to my knowledge, been identified either in manu­script or print’; Clulee, John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, p. 167. 3  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 48, mentions ‘much variety in quiring: 5 in 8; 3 in 14; 2 each in 10, 18, 20, 1 each in 4, 12’.

Chapter 3

68

between texts, which are not included in the folio numbers given in the handwritten catalogue.4 Despite being the longest codex in Core Group layout, the manu­script includes only three catchwords (fols 11v, 41v, and 69v). Simple Quires Booklet A contents: –– Observations and recipes on alchemy, partly in Latin, partly in English; fols 15r–26r.5 –– Alchemical verses for making King’es bath; fol. 26v, Incipit: Herkenethe alle, that ben kynde. Signatures: T1–6 There are quires of different level of complexity. The simplest ones are textually self-sufficient and use only a single stack of paper. The first example, which I call Booklet A (see Figure 9 opposite), is the first quire in the Core Group mise-enpage in the codex. It occupies fols 15r–26v and has two unnumbered leaves at the end. The quire contains fourteen leaves. This codicological unit is illustrative of the manu­script, particularly its earlier quires, since it contains the most common watermark found in the manu­script, the ‘Arms of Valencia’ (Briquet 2064 and 2067; Heawood 8), and since the contents are alchemical recipes and observations. The watermark is visible on leaves 21–22, 19–24, 17–unnumbered, and 15–26. The leaves are signed with a capital T or tau cross, which can also be found on the table of contents on fol. 147v.6 The outer leaves, fols 15 and 26, are somewhat worn, making it likely that the booklet was independent of the manu­script at some time. The contents are alchemical texts in Latin, French, and Middle English. There are empty spaces between recipes, which points to an ongoing process 4 

Despite being one of the three founding collections of the British Library (in addition to the Harley and Cotton collections), no comprehensive catalogue of the Sloane manu­ scripts has been published. Information on them is only available in a nineteenth-century handwritten catalogue, which will be referred to several times in this study. Recently, parts of the handwritten catalogue have been transcribed and made available online. 5  The British Library handwritten catalogue gives: ‘Observationes de alchymia, necnon processus alii varii; partim Latine partim Anglice’, fols 15–26. 6  This kind of symbol can also be found in the watermark ‘Bull’s head with tau cross’ listed by Heawood as 19. Heawood, ‘Sources of Early English Paper Supply’, p. 289.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

69

Figure 9. Booklet A in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118.

Figure 10. Booklet E in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118.

of collecting alchemical recipes and suggests that the compiler(s) of the manu­ script intended to add more. The best example of this can be found on fol. 16v, where the scribe added a recipe sign but did not copy a recipe. The booklet finishes with a Middle English verse on preparing the King’s Bath. The top margin of the first leaf (fol. 15r) contains a Latin heading in Bastard Secretary hand, ‘Confeccones’. Such headings can be found in many of the quires in Sloane 1118 and are characteristic of this manu­script in particular. There are also headings to various recipes, some of which seem to be later additions. An italic hand, which clearly appears to be later, supplied a heading to Aurum potabile on fol. 17v.

Chapter 3

70

It appears that the majority of the items were copied by a single hand, using the small compressed Secretary hand, prototypical to the Core Group. The hand that copied a French recipe on fol. 15r looks slightly different, but this may be an instance of the same scribe using a different script for French than that used for Latin and Middle English. A different, possibly later hand added notes on distillation in English, still within the Core Group writing frame, as well a drawing of the equipment required to fol. 22r in the margin. Booklet E contents: –– De occultacione lapidis; eTK number: 0511A; fols 46–48; Incipit: Est lapis occultus, secreto fonte sepultus.7 –– Some divinations in Latin; fol. 49; Incipit: Teneat quis in manu dextra quot grana voluerit. –– Pseudo-Bacon: Speculum Alchymiae, eTK: 0888G, the marginal heading is: Opus Philosophicum, fols 50–56; Incipit: Multipharie multisque modis loquebantur.8 –– Tractatulus de lapide philosophorum; fol. 58; Incipit: audere secreta. Signatures: Two sets of quire signatures (an expanded quire?) The second example, Booklet E, comprising leaves 46–59, is another example of a codicological unit containing the ‘Arms of Valencia’ watermarks (Briquet 2064, 2067, Heawood 8), the most common for this manu­script. It consists of 18 leaves, with a single leaf missing. The main text is a copy of the well-known Pseudo-Baconian alchemical work Speculum alchymiae (fols 50r–56v). This is one of the quires for which Voigts notes that the quire signatures seem to correspond with texts rather than the quire.9 This unusual practice seems to result from extending by adding more leaves to the outer quires (fols 46–49 and 58–59 as well as two empty leaves). The original quire contains PseudoBacon’s Speculum alchymiae and the additional leaves two shorter alchemical 7 

According to the handwritten British Library catalogue, this item is found printed in Theatrum Chymicum, ed. by Argent, iii, 740. The eTK finds the text in three places, one of which is a printed book and one manu­script, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Codex Latinus Monacensis 26059, fols 271r–273v. The handwritten catalogue also mentions Sloane 212. According to eTK, the text is variously attributed to Hermes, Merlin, or al Rasi. 8  The eTK finds fifteen copies of the pseudo-Baconian work. According to the hand­written British Library catalogue, it was printed in Theatro Chymico, ed. by Argent, ii, 377. 9  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 29.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

71

Figure 11. Booklet N in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118.

texts on stones: De occulatione lapidis (fols 46–48) before a pseudo-Baconian text, and Tractatulus de lapide philosophorum (fols 58–59) after it. Signatures that consist of a circled cross and an Arabic numeral on the other edge, visible on fols 50–54, correspond with the Pseudo-Bacon. The first text, on the secrets of stones, has signatures IHC 1–2, which would have been enough to ensure that the additional leaves were bound in the right place. The hand which copied the pseudo-Baconian text and the majority of the contents is a small Secretary hand very typical of the Group. Texts on fols 49r and 58r–v have been copied by a slightly different hand, or possibly the same hand using a more formal grade. Booklet N contents: –– Ortolanus Martinus: Comm. Hermes, Emerald Tablet; eTK: 0813H; fols 128–34; Incipit: Laus honor virtus et gloria sit tibi. Signatures: signed with date. The third example (see Figure 11) illustrates two things. First, it is an example of a much shorter quire, a number of which can also be found in Sloane 1118. In addition to N, Booklets C, H, K, M, and P consist of four leaves or fewer. Second, it contains one of two references in this manu­script to John Kirkby, a name that has received considerable attention with respect to the VoigtsSloane Group and which will be discussed below. A note in the top left corner of the first leaf, 128r, reads either ‘secundum Kirkeby’ or ‘John Kirkeby’ (see Figure 18). Each of the leaves is signed with a date: all are in March, but they do not mention a year. They are in a faint hand and sometimes difficult to read. The clearest reads ‘die iijo marcii’ (fol. 129).10 10 

It is one of two references to the name, the other being on fol. 36r (in Booklet C), which contains the phrase ‘Secundum Johannem Kirkeby in artibus magistrum canonice’.

Chapter 3

72

In appearance, this is a very typical Core Group quire characterized by the writing frame, compressed Secretary hand, small scribal notes, headings in Bastard Secretary hands, and unused spaces for initial letters. What is particularly noteworthy about this quire is that the watermark is ‘Grapes’, not found in any other quire in the manu­script.11 Could it mean that this booklet, which contains a commentary by Ortolanus on the Emerald Tablet, was copied elsewhere, using an exemplar from the elusive alchemist, John Kirkby?12 Extended Quires and Booklets of More than One Quire Booklet B contents: –– Observations and recipes on alchemy, partly in Latin, partly in English; fols 27–33. Signatures: 1–3. A number of quires in the manu­script appear to have been extended by adding outer folios. Booklet B (see Figure 12 opposite) is a good example of the phenomenon. It is another quire of fourteen, with one leaf missing from the outer bifolium, which can be identified by watermarks. The outer leaves are made out of the ‘Paschal lamb’ paper (cf. Briquet 23, Heawood 56), and the inner leaves from ‘flowers’ paper.13 The signatures are numbers with no letters or symbols. The quire contains no less than six pages in the Sloane core layout, which have been left blank. The first leaf displays some damage from damp which is in different places than in the previous quires, which is a sign of lying separated (booklet feature 14). Folio 29 contains an alchemical recipe in French, which is 11 

The watermark has a thicker stalk than the two illustrations in Heawood, ‘Sources of Early English Paper Supply’, figures 49 and 50, which he connects to Piedmont. It bears some resemblance to Briquet’s ‘raisins’ 12991, 92, 93 and 95, but the shape of the grapes does not quite match. These watermarks are German and Swiss, found in Solothurn, Geneva, and Brunsweig. 12  The Emerald Tablet is a short but influential alchemical treatise attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, a legendary Greco-Egyptian figure hailed as the founder of alchemy. The Tablet itself, however, is not known from Greek works and was most likely Arabic in origin. See Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, pp. 30–33. Little is known about Ortolanus (or Hortolanus), but his commentary on the Tablet was copied widely. See Roberts, The Mirror of Alchemy, pp. 68–70. 13  Resembling Heawood 43, although the stem curls slighty, unlike in the illustration by Heawood.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

73

Figure 12. Booklet B in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118.

Figure 13. Booklet J in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118.

annotated as ‘French’ by a script in italic in the margin. Folio 30v contains recipes in Middle English in a non-professional hand, which nevertheless respects the writing frame. The contents of these leaves are miscellaneous alchemical recipes and notes in several languages, including more recipes for making potable gold and another ‘for to make a broken Swerd hool’ (to make a broken sword whole) (fol. 27v).

Chapter 3

74

Booklet J contents: –– John of Rupescissa: The Book of Quintessence (English); eVK: 6694.00; fols 100–02; Incipit: The prologe of oure hevene quinte essence. To seke the verray trewe prikke of profite, the whiche is incorruptible. –– Tractatus philosophorum, quem vocaverunt Thesaurum absconditum; fols 105–06; Incipit: Nota quod per infrascriptam distillacionem in igne et sine igne. –– Ad faciendam limam perfectam es mercurio; fol. 106v. –– John Dastin: Opus de elixir aquarum ad album; eTK: 0419L; fols 107r–108r; Incipit: Dicit Ortolanus aquas minerales in hoc opere. –– John Dastin: Litera seu Epistola bona et preciosa, de operationibus hujus artis; fols 108v–111r; Incipit: Reverenciam et salutem, amice, dilectissime. Booklet J is another example of adding outer leaves from different paper stock, making it a very long quire (20–21). The quire has been extended by adding sheets on the outside and a tiny fifteenth-century Secretary hand copied an English version of John of Rupescissa’s Book of Quintessence before them (fols 100–02).14 The longer texts on fols 105r–111r, Tractatus philosophorum and De elixir aquarum ad album attributed to the English alchemist John Dastin, are copied by a slightly larger hand and have decorations in red and blue. The outer leaves have the ‘Arms of Valencia’ watermark, which are most common in this codex, and the inner leaves the less common flowers (cf. Heawood 43). Signatures begin with 1 (and a symbol) on fol. 105, whereas the added outer leaves are without signatures. Booklet F (fols 60–69) contents: –– Pseudo-Jābir: Liber Fornacum; eTK: 0252F; fols 60–71; Incipit: Consideramus consideracione non fantastica. –– Alchemical notes, fol. 72. Booklet F is yet another example of expansion, this time revealed by a catchword. It contains one of three catchwords in this manu­script, on fol. 69v, which matches fol. 70r. It is likely that this quire, too, was extended by adding more outer leaves to it. Unfortunately, the collation is difficult to establish, for the 14 

The same hand also copied a short text on coitus, which is not mentioned in the nineteenth-century handwritten British Library catalogue: presumably an instance of Victorian censorship.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

75

Figure 14. Booklet F in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118.

outer leaves, like the watermark on fol.  58, can be interpreted as matching either the other side of fol. 71 or fol. 48 of the previous booklet. The contents comprise a treatise on alchemical ovens, the ‘Book of Furnaces’ (fols 60–71) or Liber fornacum attributed to ‘Geber’, referring to the Arabic alchemist Jābir ibn Hayyān, one of the most important Muslim authorities in alchemy.15 The incipit in Sloane 1118 claims the text was translated from Arabic in the (Arabic) year 172 by Roger Bacon. The treatise is illustrated with pictures of alchemical instruments and ovens. It is followed by alchemical notes (fol. 72). Unanalysable Codicological Units Unit H contents: –– Gemma salutaris qui nascitur orbicularis; eTK: 0510M; fols 84–87; Incipit: Et dicit quod medicina nostra debet elici ex illis corporibus, in quibus argenteum vinum magis continetur. Signatures: T1–T4 15  The textual history of Jābirian writings is very complex, as it involves an entire school of Arabic alchemists attributing works to him, and later European pseudepigrahic treatises. For a discussion on the historicity of Jābir as well as the Jābirian and Pseudo-Jābirian corpus of texts, see Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, pp. 33–45, 54–58. The Book of Furnaces is discussed by Roberts, The Mirror of Alchemy, pp. 26–27, with an illustration from Sloane 1118 (p. 24).

76

Chapter 3

Figure 15. Unit H in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118.

Some parts of the manu­script proved impossible to analyse as quires or booklets. Unit H is among the more straightforward of these. It seems to consist of a quire of eight with two leaves cut off from the end, but this is impossible to verify by watermarks as they appear on the leaves that have been trimmed. The section contains another alchemical treatise known as Gemma salutaris qui nascitur orbicularis and satisfies the criteria of textual self-sufficiency, which is characteristic of booklets and found across the manu­script. Unit H contents: –– Arnald of Villanova: Liber de secretis naturalis; eTK: 0678F; fols 89–93; Incipit: Scito, fili, quod, in hoc libro loquar. –– Pseudo-Bacon: Speculum Alkame; eTK: 00521; fols 94–99; incipit: Possem facere finem circa miracula de exemplis. There are also two sections in the manu­script that could not be represented as a quire diagram: Units D and I. For example, it is very difficult to come up a with quiring plan that would explain how the leaves from 89 to 99 are bound. I interpret them as a distinct codicological unit, because the outer leaf fol. 89r is markedly worn, which suggests it was once an outer leaf in an unbound quire. The section consists of two texts: fols 89r–93r contain Liber de secretis naturalis attributed to Arnald of Villanova, which can also be found on fols 115r–122r in Booklet L; and fols 94r–99v of the Pseudo-Baconian Speculum alkame (sic). The last contains initials decorated with red and blue, and a mark T or tau cross 20 above (in which T is done with blue ink). Unusually for this manu­script, there are no empty leaves between the two texts, which is another reason to treat them as parts of the same codicological unit. However, there are no fewer than six empty leaves at the end, with the characteristic Sloane Core Group frame ruling, as well as three leaves that have been cut.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

77

Folios 94r and 96r contain red and blue decorated initials, which bear some resemblance to Trinity O.1.77 and Sloane 3566, although they lack the red and blue flourishing that is characteristic of the two. Discussion Sloane 1118 is not as straightforward an example of a booklet-manu­script as Sloane 2320, where the booklet boundaries are mostly clear. Sloane 1118, in contrast, appears to bear evidence of an ongoing process of collecting alchemical texts. This is apparent from the cutting out of final leaves, the use of numerous different paper stocks in the compilation, including extensions of quires to add more texts, and the participation of several hands in copying the texts. There are also several empty leaves at the ends of booklets, and sometimes in the middle. These amount to thirty-one in the Sloane Core section. They were left unnumbered by the person who compiled the nineteenth-century handwritten British Library catalogue. These leaves have the characteristic Core Group frame ruling and in many cases can be connected with earlier leaves in the quires by their watermarks. The codex can be considered to display two of the features that Hanna considers conclusive for fascicular manu­script productions: an independent system of signatures and blank leaves at the ends of booklets.16 There are also a number of booklets that appear to have been extended by adding extra bifolia, Booklet J being the clearest case. The manu­script is composed of quires that can be of vastly differing length (Booklets J and K in particular 20–21 and 4), and in which the length of the quire has been accommodated to the length of the text. Unlike Sloane 2320, there is only one booklet which consists of more than one quire (and even in this case, the analysis is not completely certain). The quiring of three codicological units, which I labelled Units D, H, and I, proved impossible to analyse. Unit H appears to be a quire of eight and a booklet, but this cannot be verified, because the two last leaves have been cut. Units D and I are even more difficult cases. The most satisfactory explanation is that they too are products of codicization and resulted from someone assembling a collection of alchemical and magical texts. They might be just individual leaves. The tight binding makes it impossible to verify this without unbinding the codex. 16 

See Hanna, ‘Booklets in Medi­eval Manu­scripts’, pp. 111–13.

Chapter 3

78

London, British Library, MS Sloane 1313 Fols 148, paper and parchment,17 some water damage,18 also affecting Core Group quire. Fols 135–42 in Sloane group core layout, with a page size of 215 × 148, and the size of written area 125/130 × 75/8 mm.

In addition to the massive Sloane 1118 and the Roger Bacon focused bookletmanu­script Sloane 2320, three codices contain one or more quires in the characteristic Core Group mise-en-page. One of these is British Library, MS Sloane 1313, which is another quartosized manu­script in a typical British Library binding, labelled MEDICAL COLLECTIONS. BRIT. MUS. SLOANE 1313. The main part of the codex, fols 2–90, contains mainly Latin medical texts, including an herbal, a surgery, an uroscopy, and a text on physiognomy. The remainder consists of booklets and individual leaves which have been added to the end. Among these are eight leaves in the Core Group layout, fols 135–42. They now consist of three double leaves (fols 135r–136v, fols 137r–138v, fols 139r–140v), which are on paper mounts, and two individual leaves, also on paper mounts (fols 141, 142). The pages in Sloane 1313 have been mounted separately in the whole manu­ script, and the absence of signatures and catchwords makes it impossible to determine the quiring in the Sloane Core Group leaves, but the eight leaves can be said to conform to a number of the criteria proposed by Robinson and Hanna.19 The leaves which are in the Core Group layout differ from the main body of the manu­script and the other booklets and individual leaves that have been added at the end (feature 1). The first leaf (fol. 135) is slightly soiled, suggesting that it may have been separate from the rest of the manu­script before being added to the end among other miscellaneous leaves and booklets (feature 6). Two different hands that cannot be found in the rest of the manu­script are responsible for copying the Sloane quires (feature 2). The Core Group section has unused spaces for decorated initials, unlike the rest of the manu­script (feature 3). There are no catchwords, but the Latin text is signed with dates in 17 

The majority of the manu­script is paper, including the quire which displays the Sloane Core Group layout, but the codex contains some items of parchment, including the first leaf (fol. 1), a sheet of music, and fols 92–104, containing a Middle English astrological tract attributed to ‘Tholome’, which are on vellum. 18  The manu­script has been slightly damaged by damp, visible on the lower half of some pages (fols 2–11), which has also affected the French part of the Sloane group core quire (fols 139–42), but this has not rendered the contents illegible. 19  See Robinson, ‘The “Booklet”’, and Hanna, ‘Booklets in Medi­eval Manu­scripts’.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

79

January 1458 (feature 5). No empty leaves or unused spaces can be found at the ends of quires (feature 9), but there is an English recipe in a Secretary hand in the empty space after the French text on fol. 141r–v (feature 10). Moreover, the watermarks in Core Group leaves differ from those in the rest of the manu­ script. The leaves containing the French text and additional English recipes, fols 139v–42v, have suffered some water damage which does not appear on the leaves that follow. The damage does not extend to leaf fol. 137, with the Latin on the recto and French on the verso side. To conclude, there is good reason to consider these quires a separate booklet. The texts contained in the Sloane Core booklet are a fragment of a Latin regimen of health (fols 135r–137r), a French and Latin text on balm (fols 141–42), and a French charm of St William against gout.20 The first text is written in a compressed Secretary hand, which bears a close resemblance to the hands found in Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2320. The size of the writing area and the frame ruling are also typical for the Core Group. The French texts are written in a separate hand, which is considerably larger and less typical than other Core Group hands. However, the first French text begins on the verso side of fol. 137, the last leaf of the Latin text, and the Latin and French texts share watermarks (fol.  135 and fol.  138, ‘Bull’s head, no St. Andrew’s cross’21), which indicates that these texts did at one point belong to the same quire. The Latin text is the final chapter of a regimen of health. Like Booklets A and B of Sloane 2567, it is a fragment of a longer text, which may suggest that it originated as a part of a longer codex, rather than as a booklet. Still, many texts in the longer codices Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2320 are parts of treatises rather than entire ones. The Core Group quires have space reserved for coloured initials in the Sloane quire, but it is unused. There are very few marginal notes, but fols 135r–137v have been signed with a date and a year, 1458.

20 

See Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 49. Voigts notes the appearance of Bull’s horns with St Andrew’s cross in the manu­script, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 28. However, it occurs in parts of the manu­script that are not in the Sloane group core manu­script layout (31r–33r). For the core manu­script quire, the watermarks are scarcely visible. They appear to depict a bull’s head, but there is no trace of a St Andrew’s cross. 21 

Chapter 3

80

London, British Library, MS Sloane 2567 Fols 152. Paper and parchment. 205 × 137/145 mm. Frame 120 × 82 mm, containing thirty-seven to forty lines.

British Library Sloane 2567 is another codex which contains a few leaves (fols 4–9) that display typical Sloane Core Group characteristics. They now appear as the second item of a collection of alchemical texts, otherwise from the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries.22 The codex is in an undated British Library binding of leather and marbled paper, which is now slightly damaged. Writing on the spine reads: 97. ALCHYMICAL TRACTS. MUS. BRIT. BL. SLOAN. 2567. PLUT. XCVIII.II. B.17. As in Sloane 1313, the leaves are now mounted separately, and it is not certain whether they constitute a single quire or remnants of two quires. Signatures are different for fols 5–6 and 7–8, which supports the conjecture that they are from two quires. An earlier set of Arabic numerals for page numbers fols 5–9, which may be medieval, read 61–69.23 There is one catchword (fol. 5v). Watermarks are visible on fols 6 and 9. They are the ‘Arms of Valencia’ (cf. Briquet 2064/2067 and Heawood 8). The Core Group booklet contains one parchment leaf, the first one, which is somewhat weathered and partially illegible. The following paper leaves are in good condition, which may be an indication that the parchment leaf served as the cover for a booklet that was unbound until someone in the late sixteenth century or later included it in the alchemical collection. If the Sloane core leaves are from a single quire, this would be a point of resemblance to quires 1 and 3 in Booklet A of Sloane 2320. However, the leaves are mounted separately, and catchwords and signatures do not suggest that these leaves should be treated as an entire quire. The contents of the Core Group booklet, as Voigts notes, are: ‘four Latin and four English alchemical processes’.24 The fragment of an alchemical treatise, which is the first item of the Core Group booklet, is in English. The manu­script is copied in a tiny compressed Secretary hand which is very typical of the group. Interestingly, the hand is slightly different for Latin and Middle English: it may either belong to two scribes or be an instance of using a different script for Latin. The first text, which is copied in Middle English on 22 

Many of the items are much later. For instance, the incipit for the final text is a mani­ festation of the Heavenly Jerusalem, ‘begun, Thursday, January 8th 1684’. 23  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 48. 24  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 49.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

81

Figure 16. An early modern marginal comment on London, British Library, MS 2567, fol. 7r. © The British Library Board.

the extremely weathered parchment leaf in the beginning and finishes on fol. 5r, is written in a darker ink that differs from the typical brownish ink that follows. The Core Group leaves were annotated by a sixteenth- or seventeenth-century hand, which added a few marginal headings to the Core Group booklet (see Figure 16), including the first observation, which states that the treatise is on mercury (fol. 4r): ‘This process is on [sigil of Mercury] as you will find at the end of it.’ There are also marginal comments in English (fols 4r, 7r, 8r, long annotation on 8v–9v) and Latin (fols 5v, 6r). The empty leaves at the end of the Sloane Group contain recipes in several Secretary hands, which are very likely sixteenth-century ones. Table 9. The collation of London, British Library, MS Sloane 2567. Quires

Material

Watermarks Catchwords Signed

fols  4–6

First leaf (fol. 4) Arms of parchment, paper Valencia

fols  7–10

paper

Texts

fols 5–6: Fragment of an .2.-IHC .3. alchemical treatise

Arms of Valencia 1. –2

MS Sloane 2567 contents: –– Two fragments of alchemical treatises (damaged).

Fragment of an alchemical treatise, sixteenthcentury recipes on the empty leaves at the end of the booklet

Chapter 3

82

London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948 Fols 89. Paper, the leaves are now mounted separately. The Core Group quires are in good condition.25 COLLATION:26 A 110, 28, B 3 (10–1).

The last of the three codices to contain shorter sections in the Core Group mise-en-page, Sloane 2948, is a miscellaneous collection of herbal medicine, labelled 85. VIRTUTES HERBARUM ETC. BRIT. MUS. SLOANE MS  2948. E.20. BIBLIOTHECA MANUSCRIPT. SLOANEIANA on the spine. The manu­script consists of three parts, which seem to have originated separately. The first part (fols  1–33) contains a Latin version of the herbal Agnus Castus (fols 1–20v), followed by Latin and English synonyms for herbs (fols 23r–33v).27 Miscellaneous material has been added in empty leaves and margins, including an English alchemical recipe (fol. 19v), an English recipe for curing a headache (fol. 20v), and an account of household expenses (fol. 21). The second part, which is the one relevant for our study, consists of two individual codicological units with some Sloane Core Group characteristics. The size of the leaves is 223 × 154 mm (A); 220 × 150 mm (B). (B). Two booklets display typical Sloane Core Group manu­script mise-en-page: fols 34–51 (A) 53–59 (B). The third part of the codex (fols 60r–85r) also contains mainly Middle English medical text recipes for ailments of various parts of the body and charms for sicknesses, as well as an index for the last part of the volume (fols 86v–89v), which does not list the second part with Sloane items. 25 

The edges of pages for the first treatise, the Latin Agnus Castus, are damaged, and several pages have been subjected to restoration work, joining them on whole sheets of paper. The Core Group quires, by contrast, are in good condition. The first leaf of the first Core quire, fol. 34r, is slightly more weathered and dirty than the rest, suggesting that it may have been independent at one time. 26  The final quire of the long group codex, Sloane 1118, is in the British Library catalogue described as ‘a few alchymical receipts and observations, written in a much later hand. fols 148–154’. The hands are not the same, although both are fifteenth-century Secretary hands. The sheet between the two Core group related quires, Fragmentum de virtutibus et operationibus septem herbarum secretarum per ordinem, et quomodo per eas fiunt mirabilia. Anglice, fol. 52 (according to the British Library handwritten catalogue), shares watermarks with the alchemical recipes and observations in the later hand. 27  Gösta Brodin used the manu­s cript in his edition of the English version of Agnus. According to him, the Latin version in this manu­script is the source of the English translation, as ‘the English shows in many places almost a literal agreement with the Latin, best seen in shorter items’; Agnus Castus, ed. by Brodin, pp. 20–21.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

83

Booklet A Table 10. Contents of Booklet A in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948. Quires

Watermarks

Catchwords

Signatures

34r–43v

Mounts (cf. Heawood 20)

nota, fol. 43v (matches, fol. 44r)

1–5

44r–51r

Mounts (cf. Heawood 20)

1–4

Booklet A contents:28 –– Signa sanguinis peccantis; eTK: 1457K; fols 34r–35; Incipit: si purus peccet in multitudine sanguis. –– A uroscopy (Latin); fols 34v–35r. –– Herbal remedies and recipes (Latin); fols 35r–41. –– On measurements (Latin); fols 41–51. –– Medical notes (Latin). The first booklet has a slightly larger frame ruled writing area, and the hand is also slightly larger than in other Core Group codices. The writing area in this quire is larger than the 143 × 93 mm (A) of the other manu­scripts; 122/150 × 79/82 mm. The lines per page are thirty-four to thirty-seven (A) and thirty-seven to forty (B). The leaves are now mounted separately but can be identified by signatures and a catchword on fol. 43v as belonging to two quires which form a codicological unit. Watermarks for these quires are ‘Mounts’ (Heawood 20), which can also be found on some leaves in Sloane 1118. Folio 51r is signed as having been copied in London in 1462. All of the texts in these two quires are in Latin, and they are copied by the same hand. Leaves 35 to 51 contain some herbal material, called Receptae medicae; et de virtutibus herbarum in the handwritten catalogue. The herbal content is the likely reason why these two quires were included in this manu­script. A number of authorities are referred to in the text, including John Kirkby on fol. 41r. His name is also mentioned in a small marginal note. In between Booklets A and B is a single paper leaf, in sixteenth-century Secretary, which shares watermarks with the final quire in Sloane 1118 (the extra leaf in quire three (8 + 1) has the same hand with the flowers watermark as well). The handwritten British Library catalogue identifies it as a fragment of Virtutibus et operationibus septem herbarum detretarum per ordinum et quomodo per sav fiunt mirabilia. Anglice, fol. 25. 28 

See also Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 50.

Chapter 3

84

Booklet B Table 11. Contents of Booklet B in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948. Quires

Watermarks

fols 53r–59v

Arms of Valencia (cf. Briquet 2064/2067 and Heawood 8)

Catchwords

Signatures

The second codicological unit can safely be identified as belonging to the Sloane Core Group, as it has the combination of standard generous margins and compressed Secretary hands that characterize the group. The ‘Arms of Valencia’ watermarks (Briquet 2064, 2067, Heawood 8) are also among the most common in the group manu­scripts. The contents include a Middle English herbal (fols 53–56v), which goes well with the overall theme of the codex. A faint scribal note after the herbal states ‘liber explicit 1. herbarum’. It is followed by astrological material (fol. 56) in the same hand and Latin recipes for waters in a completely different Secretary hand (fols 57–58). Booklet B shows some damage from damp which is not shared with Booklet A or the following leaves, proving that it was separate at one point. The damage can also be found on fol. 52 (a sixteenth-century Secretary leaf between the two Sloane booklets, which does not share watermarks with either of the Sloane booklets) and an extra leaf at the end of Booklet B. A leaf has been cut out between fol. 53v and 54r.

London, British Library, MS Additional 19674 Fols 80. Paper, somewhat worn. 210 × 140 mm. Frame 125 × 73 mm, containing an average of thirty-eight to forty-four lines per page. COLLATION: 112–3, 2–412, 510, 612, 77, 86.

British Library, MS Additional 19674 consists of seven quires in the Sloane quarto layout, and an eighth quire which is not. Unlike Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2320, it is evident from catchwords, signatures, and watermarks that these quires were intended as a longer codex. The manu­script is in an old British Museum binding.29 The cover is leather, and the inner flyleaves marbled paper. 29 

A note on a flyleaf in the beginning mentions it is from the collections of Thomas Martin Palgrave (1696/97–1771), the Suffolk antiquarian and lawyer. His signature can be seen in the top left corner of the same opening.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

85

One of the covers is loose, and the manu­script is now stored in a separate box. The writing on the spine is partially damaged and now reads: MEDICAL RECEIPT. ETC. The manu­script contains seven quires in the Core Group layout.30 Quire 7 may have been an independent Sloane Core booklet, as it has its own series of signatures and is not connected by a catchword to the preceding quire. However, since the watermark ‘Bull’s head with a crescent moon’ is the same as in the previous quires, it is more likely that the manu­script is just missing two leaves from the beginning, as the signatures start from three.31 It contains several empty leaves towards the end. The first leaves of quire 1 are very soiled, which suggests that the manu­script was unbound and took some damage. The additional quire 8 is also quite soiled. Catchwords can be seen on fols 11v, 22v, 34v, and 59. The order of signatures is mixed in gathering 4 (signed d.2, d.3, d.1, d.4, d.6, d.5). The British Library online catalogue notes that a few leaves are missing. One of the annotating hands added catchwords to his marginal comments. These are on fols 63v, 64v, 65v, and 66v. On fol. 65v the ink from his catchword overlaps with the following page, which shows that the manu­script was bound together when he added the catchwords. The contents are miscellaneous texts that mainly deal with medicine, but also astrology and magic. The leaves 2r to 50v contain remedies for various sicknesses, including headache, toothache, dropsy, a bleeding nose, and different kinds of swelling. It also contains instructions for making various drugs, including aqua vitae. Folios 51r to 52v contain a short astrological text (eVK 1049.00), including instructions on what to eat and drink during each month. Folios 52v to 55v contain a phlebotomy (eVK 3240.00). Folios 55r to 56r have a Latin regimen of health (eTK 0313M). Folios 56 to 57 include an English text on haematoscopy (eVK 7181.00). Folios 57v to 61r contain more remedies and instructions on making diagnoses, in both Latin and English. Leaves 61v to 62v contain short Latin texts, including recipes and some magic. Leaves 63 to 67 have been left empty, but a later hand has added recipes, mainly in English 30 

This is not an impossible number for Robinson’s definition of booklet. The longest example mentioned by her consists of ‘seven gatherings’; ‘The “Booklet”’, p. 160. However, as the Sloane Core quires are the main content of the manu­script, and it includes only one additional quire, I refer to it as a codex rather than booklet. 31  The watermark is not listed by Heawood. The only watermark with crescent downwards mentioned by Briquet is 14394, which he lists in Lucq in 1454. However, the shape of the horns is different than in MS Add. 19674.

86

Chapter 3

but also including some Latin. Folios 69 to 71 contain English recipes, again in the Core Group layout. Unlike the majority of Core Group manu­scripts, this manu­script is almost entirely in Middle English, and its contents are more medical than alchemical. Were it not for the two prototypical features, a small condensed Secretary hand and wide margins, which are both fine examples typical of the Core Group, this Middle English remedy book might seem out of place among predominantly Latin alchemical manu­scripts like Sloane 1118 and 2567. Both the hand and the margins are, however, immediately recognizable as part of the Group. The collection does include a text on making aqua vitae and the miscellaneous treatises on subjects like magic, which make it evident that the codex belongs to the same Group.

Booklets, Longer Codices, and Likely Reasons for the Variation in Format The discussion of Add. 19674 concludes my collation of all codices that Voigts includes in the ‘core’ of her Sloane Group. These manu­scripts are more miscellaneous than the Sibling Group, as they contain a wide selection of medical and alchemical texts copied in a similar format. The analysis reveals that the Core Group manu­scripts, with one exception, either definitely consist of booklets or may consist of booklets: Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2320 are fasciscular in their entirety. Sloane 1313, 2567, and 2948 contain codicological units in the Core Group mise-en-page which are independent and clearly different from the codices they now belong to. Nevertheless, despite their physical similarity, the Core Group codices also differ from each other in a number of respects. Of the three longer codices, Sloane 1118 contains evidence of extending quires and adding alchemical material to the extra folios. In Sloane 2320 the texts correspond more clearly with the booklets, and the manu­script can almost be considered a textbook case of a fascicular production. The third longer codex, Add. 19674, is not a booklet manu­script. Each has its own codicological identity. The manu­script which is not composed of booklets, Add. 19674, contains six quires which form the main part of the codex. The existence of one longer codex in a mise-en-page otherwise reserved for booklets does not necessarily challenge the interpretation that these manu­scripts originated when someone was collecting texts in a standard format, normally commissioning treatises and extracts from treatises as booklets. According to Robinson’s original definition, the length of the booklet would be accommodated to the length of the text(s). If the compiler wanted a longer text or a sequence of texts, like the contents of

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

87

Add. 19674, he or she would have commissioned them as a codex of six quires, in which they would fit.32 In addition to booklet origin, the Core Group is characterized by a lack of textual overlap, which makes it likely for them to result from the endeavours of an individual or several individuals to collect a library of medical, magical and alchemical texts. The codicological units are now bound together grouped according to their subject matter: Sloane 1313 contains ‘medical collections’; Sloane 2948 contains herbal medicine, which was an important part of treatment in the scholastic tradition of medicine and which had a long history as herbal remedies, practised in monasteries and also as one of the main treatments; Add. 19674 could be described as a remedy book, as it is for the most part a very miscellaneous collection of recipes and various treatments listed one after another, without much theoretical justification. It is, however, the alchemical contents of Sloane 1118, Sloane 2320, and Sloane 2567 that really stand out from scholastic medicine.

Alchemy: Its Popularity and Questionable Reputation The appearance of alchemical texts in the Core Group makes it hard to imagine that they would have been sold as a part of the open book trade somewhere in the vicinity of the Old St Paul’s. Unlike medicine, which was a university discipline and likely to provide a solid income and a respectable position in society, alchemy was an occult art, mostly practised in secret laboratories by men of questionable reputation who reeked of sulphur and were frequently accused of charlatanism and fraud. The practice of alchemy was illegal in fifteenth-century England, as both the prospect of unlimited wealth, promised by the discovery of the philosophers’ stone, and the availability of precious metals as counterfeits, which the alchemists could deliver, caused authorities take steps to limit its practice. Despite its shady reputation, alchemy appears to have been a common pursuit, and its popularity only grew towards the end of the Middle Ages.33 The discipline, which had been practised in Ptolemaic Egypt and Byzantium, was unknown in the Latin West until it was introduced through contact with the Islamic world as a part of the twelfth-century Renaissance.34 European fasci32 

I have discussed this with Linda Voigts, personal communication, February 2013. Tavormina, ‘Roger Bacon: Two Extracts’, p. 338, notes that ‘out of nearly 9400 Middle English medical and scientific texts catalogued in the eVK database, the second-largest category in the Subject Index is Alchemy, with over 1400 records, exceeded only by Recipes’. 34  Reputedly, the first treatise was De compositione alchemiae, ‘On the Composition of 33 

88

Chapter 3

nation with alchemy grew, and its promise of quick wealth found an environment that favoured it in thirteenth-century papal and imperial courts. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the audience of alchemy extended even further to the lower aristocracy and the middle classes. People from many walks of life were attracted by the promise of quick wealth. This means that the person or people responsible for the alchemical booklets now in Core Group codices Sloane 1118 and 2567 had a lot of company. The promise of endless wealth was one of the reasons that alchemy was viewed with suspicion. The possibility of transmutation was criticized by some, including Ibn-Sīnā (Avicenna), who in his Book of Remedy declared that while alchemists could produce excellent imitations of gold and silver, their products fell short of real precious metals.35 Ibn-Sīnā’s treatise was discussed both in the Arabic world and later in the West. Alchemists were frequently accused of deceiving the unwary with various dirty tricks as well as passing counterfeit gold as real.36 Authorities also feared the effects that the unrestricted availability of gold would have on the economy, as a sudden huge increase in stock would lower the value of the precious metal.37 Legal measures were taken by the Vatican, as well as by secular rulers. Pope John XXII issued a papal decree in 1317, stipulating that ‘anyone selling or using alchemical metal as if it were natural gold or silver is sentenced to surrender an equal weight of true gold or silver to the public treasury for distribution to the poor’.38 In England, in the first years of his reign, Henry IV forbade the ‘craft of multiplication’ of ‘gold or silver’ by a Royal Statute in 1403/04, making it punishable as a felony.39 Alchemy is most commonly associated with the transmutation of base metals into gold and silver in a process known as chrysopoeia,40 but this was only Alchemy’, by the English monk Robert of Chester in Islamic Spain. See Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, p. 51. 35  See Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, pp. 48, 58–62. 36  Stories of fraudulent alchemists were already in circulation in the Arab world, and the literary tradition/genre continued until the eighteenth century; see Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, p. 49. Chaucer’s Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale and Ben Jonson’s The Alchemist are two of the most famous English literary works. On alchemy in English literature, see Linden, Darke Hierogliphicks. 37  Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, p. 61. 38  Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, p. 61. 39  See Geoghegan, ‘A Licence of Henry VI’, p. 10. 40  Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, p. 13.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

89

one of its goals. Another was the search for a universal medicine: the elixir of life. An entire ‘wave of alchemical treatises […] began to appear, many of them later attributed to such authors as Arnald of Villanova, Ramon Lull, and Bacon himself, as did works by known authors such as the Englishman John Dastin’.41 One of the central figures in this development was John of Rupescissa, who wrote the Book of Quintessence.42 Rupescissa was a Franciscan friar who was imprisoned for his apocalyptic prophecies, as he believed the coming of the Antichrist was at hand. Rupescissa also believed that alchemical medicine could be used to protect the faithful against plagues and violence in the final days.43 In practice, alchemists’ efforts to produce a universal cure seem mainly to have focused on distilling alcohol in as pure a form as possible. Rupescissa’s fifth element is a form of alcohol, and the treatise for making it is found in Trinity O.1.77, Sloane 1118, and Sloane 2320, as are treatises on making aqua ardens and aqua vitae, along with medicinal wines. Medical alchemy appears not to have been as disreputable as metallurgical alchemy, as its desired outcome, the discovery of a universal cure, did not have the potential of disturbing the economy like the discovery of the philosophers’ stone. Notably, Henry IV’s statute only appears to forbid metallurgical alchemy.44 This also explains why treatises on distillation, like the one on aqua ardens, are also included in the Sibling Group. However, while medical alchemy, and treatises on the prolongation of life, are well attested in the Core Group, two manu­scripts, Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2567, primarily contain metallurgical alchemy. These two include topics such as mercury (e.g., Sloane 1118, fols 16r, 43r; Sloane 2567),45 repairing broken swords (Sloane 1118, fols 27v–28r; see Figure 30), constructing and using alchemical furnaces (Sloane 1118, fols 60r– 71r), separating gold from silver (Sloane 1118, fol. 24r), and the original goal of alchemy, the transmutation of metals, including recipes for making the philosophers’ stone (see, e.g., Sloane 1118, fols 37r–v, 44r, 130r, 135r). Consequently, the person or institution who compiled these booklets had an interest in both of the main pursuits of fifteenth-century alchemy.

41 

Tavormina, ‘Roger Bacon: Two Extracts’, p. 336. Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, p. 69. 43  For an excellent introduction to Rupescissa, see DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy, and the End of Time. 44  Tavormina, ‘Roger Bacon: Two Extracts’, p. 336. 45  On mercury, see Roberts, The Mirror of Alchemy, p. 22. 42 

Chapter 3

90

‘A Book Opens a Book’ in Alchemy The large number of texts and lack of overlap in the Core Group fits the pattern of collecting an alchemical library. The occult played an important part in alchemy, and discovering its secrets required a combination of experimentation, prayer, and the study of old books to unlock their secrets.46 Alchemical discourse usually aimed at being deliberately obscure and ambiguous, and used a number of strategies to achieve its goal of secrecy. Starting from the earliest of Alexandrian-Greek treatises, alchemists use riddles for the names of substances, including the so-called Decknamen ‘cover names’, which substitute ‘another word — usually one that has some link, literal or metaphorical, with the substance intended’. These names ‘serve a dual purpose’ as ‘they maintain secrecy’ but ‘also allow for discreet communication among those having the knowledge or intelligence to decipher the system’; to remain decipherable, the Decknamen had ‘to be logical, not arbitrary’.47 Arabic and Latin traditions added further ways of preserving the secrets. The Jābirian writers saw it necessary to cut and disperse knowledge into several different places in the texts to preserve secrecy.48 Pseudo-Jābir, whose treatises are found in Sloane 1118, had the interesting practice of peppering ‘his text with what seem to be characteristically Arabic grammatical constructions and expressions translated into Latin’, to lend it greater air of authority in a manu­script culture that valued old texts.49 Alchemical practice has a hybrid nature, as it was a combination of practical art and knowledge grounded in natural philosophical literature — alchemists did not work blindly and without organization. However, alchemy also had a contemplative, mystical side. In connection with this hybrid nature, the secretive language rendered alchemical texts very enigmatic indeed.50 Practising alchemists searched continuously for new texts, because what was indecipherable in one book could made clear by another regardless of the language.

46 

See Pereira, ‘Alchemy and the Use of Vernacular Languages’, and Kassell, ‘Reading for the Philosophers’ Stone’. 47  Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, p. 18. 48  Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, p. 44. 49  Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, p. 55. 50  See Pereira, ‘Alchemy and the Use of Vernacular Languages’, p. 353; For a description of how alchemists worked, see Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, who also tries out some alchemical recipes.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

91

[W]hy would an alchemist in search of a clear understanding of the operative processes disdain books written in everyday language of material life and of practical experience? If perusing different texts — Latin and vernacular, poetry and prose — put before him different versions of the opus, the alchemist could always assume that this in itself confirmed the traditional alchemical aphorism “liber librum aperit;” that is, what is obscurely said in one text may be made plain by another.51

This principle of liber librum aperit, ‘a book opens a book’, explains both the great variety of alchemical treatises found in the Core Group as well as the occasional overlap. The alchemical texts in Sloane 1118 and 2567, including several recipes for the philosophers’ stone, clearly represent the efforts of someone searching for alchemical texts to help with their opus. Furthermore, the duplication of treatises attributed to Arnald of Villanova (‘glossa arnaldi’, fols 89r–93r, 115r–122r) and Roger Bacon (Speculum alchemiae, ‘opus philosophica’, fols 50r–56v; ‘Speculum alkamie’, fols 94–99) in Sloane 1118, and different versions of the Book of Quintessence by John of Rupescissa, including a Middle English translation (Sloane 1118, fols 100r–102v) and a version erroneously attributed to Roger Bacon (Booklet G, Sloane 2320), fit in with the pattern of text compilation for alchemical practice. The likely reason for copying the same treatise twice was that the first one was unintelligible or did produce the desired effect, and the practitioner sought out a different copy. The most obvious explanation for the wide margins in the Core Group is that they were intended for making notes. Commentary was one of the standard forms of scholastic writing,52 so that leaving space for annotation in the margins of manu­scripts was then a common practice.53 The fact that it has been done here indicates a more than passing interest in alchemy.54 There are a number of instances in which the large margins have been put to use (see Figure 2). Occasionally, the hand of the scribe has supplied a piece of text that he forgot to copy in the first place. Medi­eval annotation in these codices, however, is somewhat limited, and whoever copied and commissioned these codices did not comment on them extensively (however, extending quires to add more alchemical content in Sloane 1118 does indicate an ongoing process of compilation). Instead, what appears to have happened is that the manu­script saw continued use in the early modern period, as many annotations are by later hands, 51 

Pereira, ‘Alchemy and the Use of Vernacular Languages’, p. 353. See Taavitsainen, ‘Transferring Classical Discourse Conventions’, p. 40. 53  See, e.g., Roberts, Guide to Scripts Used in English Writings up to 1500, pp. 163, 205. 54  Carmen Cardelle de Hartmann, personal communication, 2012. 52 

Chapter 3

92

especially in Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2567. Activities of early modern annotators include supplying headings or short marginal notes on the contents of the treatise in question (see Figure 16). Where the medieval text is particularly difficult to read, the early modern annotator has performed ‘restorations’, tracing the original letters in darker ink (Sloane 1118, fols 84r–88r). This kind of early modern provenance is common for alchemical manu­scripts. In fact, the golden age of alchemy only occurred in the early modern period after it had become ‘thoroughly established in Europe’, and its two main goals, ‘metallic transmutation’ and ‘pharmaceutical medicine’, developed in various directions. 55 As the fascination with alchemy continued in the sixteenth century, prominent early modern figures like Elias Ashmole and Sir Hans Sloane collected ‘ancient manu­scripts’ for their secrets:56 ‘Hans Sloane and Elias Ashmole preserved many paper manu­scripts for us; they also rebound large numbers of them, tidying them up and shedding leaves in the process.’57 Consequently, there appear to be two layers of provenance for these manu­ scripts: medieval and early modern. The early modern user(s), possibly Sloane himself, may also be responsible for rearranging the booklets, since it is quite likely that the current order of manu­scripts is not the medieval order. The three alchemical codices Sloane 1118, 2320, and 2567 are likely candidates for later rearrangement.58 The main focus of this study, however, is on the medieval origin and provenance.

Medi­eval Names Connected to the Core Group Some information on the medieval as opposed to early modern origin and provenance of the Core Group can be gleaned from names found in them, which include not only recognized authorities, medical and alchemical, ancient and medieval, but also a handful of roughly contemporary ones. 55 

Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, pp. 107–08. See Kassell, ‘Reading for the Philosophers’ Stone’, pp. 133–34. Early modern provenance is outside the scope of the present study. However, identifying these hands might help with establishing the provenance of the group. 57  Hargreaves, ‘Some Problems in Indexing Middle English Recipes’, p. 97. 58  Possible evidence of rearranging can be found in Sloane 2567 and Sloane 2320, which contain quires that have tiny symbols next to quire numbers, a rather unusual practice which likely had significance for the person commissioning or copying the alchemical booklets. It may indicate that they belong together, rather than in their present codices, which may have been arranged according to subject matter by Sloane or an earlier collector. 56 

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

93

The predominantly English manu­script Add. 19674 contains recipes attributed to three names, which may be contemporary or at least nearly contemporary. The first is found on fol. 28v, which contains a recipe for making ‘gratia dei’ attributed to ‘the lady Beauchampe the Erles wyf of Warvyk’. The reference is very likely to be to Anna de Beauchamp, sixteenth countess of Warwick (1426–92), the wife of Richard Neville ‘the Kingmaker’ and the mother of Anne Neville, who was the spouse of Richard III and briefly the queen of England. Recipes attributed to her can be found in a number of Middle English medical manu­scripts.59 Although there is fairly little evidence of professional female medical practitioners in late medieval England, appearance of recipes like this, named after high-born women, may indicate that it was commonplace for them to give health advice.60 The second name is a Latin ‘Vnguentum pro scabie’ attributed to Roger Marchall (fol. 32r). Roger Marchall (fl. 1436–77) was a Cambridge-trained physician who can be connected to a considerable number of manu­scripts, which he purchased both new and second-hand, borrowed, and annotated.61 Marchall also had some alchemical interests, as he ‘owned a manu­script containing some fourteen alchemical treatises, though the remainder of the fortyfour manu­scripts are primarily medical or astronomical in content’.62 The recipe in Add. 19674, however, does not appear to be written in Roger’s hand, which is attested in multiple manu­scripts, since he was very active in commissioning and annotating multiple manu­scripts, and the formulation is ‘secundum Rogerum Marchall’, which indicates that he is the source and not the owner or annotator.63 59  The same recipe is found in British Library, MS  Add. 33996, see Heinrich, Ein mittelenglisches Medicinbuch, p. 187. A recipe for making gratia dei can also sometimes be found attributed to Earl of Hereford (for example, Balliol College 329, fol. 74v). According to Horner, A Handlist of Manu­scripts, p. 8, MS Digby 29 contains ‘salves ascribed to the Earl of Hereford and to “Madame de Beauchamp” (in French on fols 59–60)’. 60  Other examples can be found in the Paston letters and in John Crophill’s commonplace book, which contains ‘A treatise in Latin on the virtues of herbs (supposedly belonging to Philippa, wife of Edward III of England)’; Ayoub, ‘John Crophill’s Books’, p. 266, see also p. 211. 61  An outline of his activities and a list of manu­scripts connected to him can be found in Voigts, ‘A Doctor and his Books’, pp. 249–50. She does not list Add. 19674 among them. 62  Tavormina, ‘Roger Bacon: Two Extracts’, p. 337. 63  Voigts also proposes a connection to Robert Broke, who was a master of the king’s stillatories and associated with the king’s household between 1432 and 1455. His picture can

94

Chapter 3

The third one is Stalworth, mentioned on fol. 55r as the source for a recipe on callosity ‘For the Calasite withjn a mannes head. secundum Staleworthe’. The date and the surgical subject matter make it likely that the reference is to William Stalworth, who served as a surgeon to Henry VI and possibly Henry V and died in 1446.64 The phrasing and the fact that he died eighteen years before the earliest date found in the Core Group (1454 in Sloane 2320, Booklet E) make it clear that he is present as an authority without other connections to the Group. All three are cited as sources and not as owners of these manu­s cripts. Marchall, however, has an interesting connection to alchemy and was active in London in the 1460s, when the Voigts-Sloane manu­scripts were copied. One manu­script in his collection is an astronomical volume (Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS  467/574  (251)), which he purchased from John Fauceby, an Oxford-trained physician with an interest in alchemy. Fauceby, in turn, is connected to John Kirkby, whose name occurs in three booklets in the Core Group.

be found in the manu­script Ashmole 1505, Lily of Medicines. It has been subjected to yet another study by Voigts, in which she sketches the outlines of his life. Voigts, ‘Master of the King’s Stillatories’, p. 235. Three things are of interest to us: first, Broke’s period of activity overlaps with dates mentioned in the Core Group; second, Broke is mentioned in connection to ‘William Hattecliffe and John Faceby, as well as the chaplain John Kirkeby’ (Voigts, ‘Master of the King’s Stillatories’, pp. 236–37); third, he is also mentioned in connection to Roger Marchall, who is mentioned in Add. 19674. However, she notes that ‘Only the one large English language manu­script, Ashmole 1505, can be securely identified with Broke’; Voigts, ‘Master of the King’s Stillatories’, pp. 248. The connection to the Sloane Group thus remains uncertain. 64  See Talbot and Hammond, The Medical Practitioners in Medi­eval England, pp. 415–16. The first mention of him is in c. 1422, when he was provided with an income of 100s. per year for seven years from the herbage of the King’s Park of Ceylesmore. This provision was renewed on 19 June 1428. An order dated to 1 March 1430 gives licence to four surgeons, not named, to reside in the king’s household as assistants to William Stalworth. On 14 November 1434 Stalworth’s income was augmented by his appointment as steward of the Park (Cheylesmore), the office ‘to be discharged by him in person or by deputy with the accustomed fees, wages, and profits as Robert Castell had’. This Stalworth had originally received from the hands of Henry V, making it likely that he was the surgeon of the earlier Lancastrian king as well. In 1446, provision was made for the transfer of this income to other royal employees, ‘immediately after the decease of William Stalworth’. A  letter from 29 December 1446 reveals that he was deceased. I am grateful to Katherine Hindley and Peter Murray Jones for help with Stalworth.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

95

John Kirkby, the Royal Chaplain and Alchemist? The name John Kirkby can be found in the margins of two manu­scripts, Sloane 1118, Booklets C and N, and Sloane 2948, Booklet A (Figures 17 to 19 illustrate these). He appears to have been a prominent alchemical practitioner who was active in the mid- to late fifteenth century. Kirkby was one of three medical practitioners, along with John Rainy and the above-mentioned John Fauceby, who were granted a special licence by Henry VI to practise alchemy in 1456. The transmutation of gold and silver had been outlawed by the current Henry’s grandfather in 1403/04, but the statute ‘was soon modified, in a very English way, by the awarding of licenses from the Crown to practise alchemy, on the condition that the precious metals produced were to be sold directly to the Royal Mint’.65 In the course of the fifteenth century, ‘many persons subsequently petitioned for Letters Patent to engage in alchemical operations’ and were often granted them.66 A document, comprising the letter of petition, a draft of the administrative office, and the decision, survives for this case.67 It was signed by twelve applicants described as ‘most learned in natural sciences’ or ‘fidelity and discression’, and, perhaps wisely, it begins by emphasizing the medical benefits of alchemy, although transmutation of metals is also mentioned. Only three of the twelve applicants were granted the licence: Kirkby, Fauceby, and Rainy. Another alchemical connection is that a John Kirkby is known as the scribe of Testamentum by Ramón Llull (more accurately, Pseudo-Llull) from Catalan to English, which survives in a number of copies, and as Catalan, Latin and Anglo-Norman versions. One of the manu­scripts is Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 244, which is significant as it is the earliest preserved copy of the Catalan text. It contains a colophon which states that it was translated by Kirkby in 1455. According to Voigts, this colophon contains ‘several similarities of phrasing to the editorial comment on fol. 46 of Sloane MS 2948’.68

65 

Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, p. 62. Geoghegan, ‘A Licence of Henry VI’, p. 10. 67  For a transcription and translation, see Geoghegan, ‘A Licence of Henry VI’, pp. 13–17. 68  ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 36. The manu­script was used as the base text in Il “Testamentum” alchemico, ed. by Pereira and Spaggiari. Pereira considers it ‘a very important document in the Pseudo-Lullian tradition’; ‘Mater medicinarum’, p. 33. 66 

Chapter 3

96

Figure 17. A marginal comment: ‘Secundum Johannem Kirkeby in artibus magistrum canonice.’ London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118, fol. 36r. © The British Library Board.

Figure 18. A marginal comment: ‘Secundum Kyrkeby.’ London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118, fol. 128r. © The British Library Board.

Figure 19. A marginal comment ‘Kirkby’ and passage which mentions John Kirkby. London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948, fol. 46r. © The British Library Board.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

97

Et ego magister Iohannes Kirkeby magister qui hanc libram scripsi ex copia libri eiusdem quam scripsit idem cirurgicus manu propria de me ipso scio id quod dicitur esse certum. (And I master John Kirkby master, who wrote this book out of that book which the same surgeon wrote with my own hand and myself know it because it is said to be certain.)

However, apart from the connection to the 1456 document, identifying the exact person is difficult, as records survive of several people with the same name.69 John was, of course, extremely common as a first name, and Kirkby not uncommon as a surname, deriving from Kirkby, ‘church village’, of which there are several in the Danelaw area.70 The wordings ‘in artibus magistrum canonice’ and ‘magister Iohannes kirkeby’ suggest he had a master’s degree, which narrows down the search. Unfortunately, biographical registers and lists of alumni of Oxford and Cambridge contain several possible candidates, which are discussed by Voigts.71 She is very cautious about identifying the John Kirkby in the Sloane Group with certainty, especially concerning the longest entry — ‘If a single man held all the benefices listed in Emden’s entry for this Oxford “John Kirkby”, he was a pluralist of remarkable proportions.’72 However, Pereira and Hughes are of the opinion, despite the several alternatives, that our John Kirkby can identified as the chaplain for Henry VI — an identification that seems likely, because of the alchemical content of Sloane 1118 and the close proximity of the dates found in the Core Group manu­scripts. Jonathan Hughes goes much further in his biography of Edward IV, in which he aims at describing the reign and personality of the king in terms of fifteenth-century thought systems, such as Arthurian myths, classical philosophy, and the prophecies and genealogical trees by which Yorkists justified their usurpation of the throne.73 In the process, he creates a fanciful narrative of John Kirkby as a member of an influential group of court alchemists, along with

69 

See Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, pp. 34–36. The Gazetteer of British Place Names lists twenty-seven locations in present-day Eng­ land which have Kirkby as part of their name; [accessed 24 November 2015]. 71  Emden, A  Biographical Register of the Uni­ver­sity of Oxford; Emden, A  Biographical Register of the Uni­ver­sity of Cambridge; Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, i.3. 72  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 35. 73  Hughes, Arthurian Myths and Alchemy. 70 

Chapter 3

98

the likes of Thomas Norton, Sir George Ripley, and Gilbert Kymer, who were active first in the service of Henry VI and later of Edward IV. This is enabled by taking considerable liberties with three Core Group manu­ scripts he uses as primary sources: Sloane 1118, 2320, and 2948. He associates them strongly with Kirkby, claiming that Booklet A in Sloane 2948 was copied by Kirkby personally, and describing Sloane 1118 as ‘Kirkby’s collection of alchemical works of Rupescissa, Geber and Arnald of Villanova’, and Sloane 2320 as ‘medical treatises associated with John Kirkby’.74 On Sloane 2948, he states: Kirkeby was probably practicing medicine at the priory: in 1462 he wrote a text on herbal medicine, which included a section on laxatives and clysters for the elimination of excess and corrupt humours. The text concludes: ‘I Mr John Kirkeby wrote and copied this book in my own hand.’

This is problematic for a number of reasons (see Figure 19). First of all, Kirkby’s name is in the middle of the text (fol. 46r), not at the end (fol. 51). Second, there is nothing to suggest that the booklet would be an authorial holograph, and that the year 1462 would refer to the composition of the treatise rather than when it was copied. Third, Kirkby is not the only name mentioned. John of Arderne is mentioned on fol. 40v and scribbled in the top margin of fol. 41r. ego magister iohannes de Ardern Cirurgicorum minius hunc libellum propria manu mea exarruvi apud London Anno videlicet Regni Ricardi 2. primo et etatis mee lxx.

Since this passage precedes the reference to John of Kirkby, it is quite likely that the ‘cirurgicus’ referred to in John of Kirkby’s text is John Arderne, the author of Fistula in ano.75 On the appearance of the name in Sloane 1118, Hughes gives the following account: Kirkeby was also the source for a collation of a miscellany of alchemical treatises variously attributed to Roger Bacon, Arnold of Villanova, Geber, John of Rupes­ cissa and Raymond Lull, with diagrams and texts on magic and medicine, compiled in January 1458.76

However, as Hughes notes, Kirkby is mentioned as a source rather than an author: both of the references to him are worded ‘secundum Kirkeby’, which 74 

See Hughes, Arthurian Myths and Alchemy, p. 51 for the claim on Sloane 2948, and p. 327 for the ones on Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2320. 75  See, e.g., Jones, ‘Four Middle English Translations’. 76  Hughes, Arthurian Myths and Alchemy, p. 51.

CORE GROUP: MANUSCRIPT DESCRIPTIONS, BOOKLET CONSTRUCTION

99

usually indicates that the passage is quoted from Kirkby.77 Hughes makes a mistake, since the date 1458 is found in Sloane 1313, not 1118. Furthermore, Kirkby’s name in Sloane 1118 is only found in connection to one recipe and booklet (N), which contains the ‘Grapes’ watermark not found elsewhere in the manu­script, and therefore cannot be taken as certain proof for the manu­ script as a whole. Hughes also connects Sloane 2320 with John Kirkby: Kirkeby’s name also appears in another manu­script as the author of a medical treatise. In this medical collection there is an account of the symptoms of an excess of phlegmatic humour and remedies for the purging of phlegm that may have been written with Henry VI in mind.78

I have not found any references to John Kirkby in Sloane 2320, and Hughes does not give exact folios. Furthermore, I see no signs of provenance connected to Henry VI and no reason to presume that this copy of Manipulus medicine de digestivis et laxativis (Sibling Set Text 1) would have been used to treat the Lancastrian monarch for his mental health problems. In my opinion, the evidence points towards the compilers of the Sloane Core manu­scripts using Kirkby as a source, perhaps collaborating with him, rather than his personal involvement or ownership of these manu­s cripts. According to Pereira, ‘his rather central position in the “Sloane Group” shows that he was highly reputed for his knowledge of alchemy and natural philosophy’, which is a good summary of his relevance for the group.79 Most of the names in the group refer to dead authorities — alchemy was a field that looked back to ‘ancient’ secrets once possessed by great men, whereas John Kirkby was active at the same time as the Voigts-Sloane manu­scripts were compiled. It does seem that whoever compiled the alchemical booklets in the Core Group held him in high regard. Along with the names of William Stalworth and Roger Marchall, it is also a connection to the court and royalty, suggesting either that the compilers took particular note of the name of Kirkby as they did of Stalworth’s and Marchall’s, who had careers as a Royal surgeon and physician respectively, or that these manu­scripts themselves had some connection to the Royal household. Even though Hughes may read too much into the John Kirkby connection, it is tempting to think that the person or group who commissioned these manu­ 77 

Carmen Cardelle de Hartmann, personal communication, 2012. Hughes, Arthurian Myths and Alchemy, p. 51. 79  Pereira, ‘Mater medicinarum’, p. 36. 78 

100

Chapter 3

scripts were somehow connected to the circles of prominent alchemical practitioners at the time, perhaps one of the twelve participating in the 1456 petition of alchemists. One direction for future research would be to compare the hands of people connected with Kirkby in the petition of alchemists, if holographic material survives from any of them. This could provide more information on how these manu­scripts were compiled. However, the fact that alchemy was practised by many makes the range of potential suspects a very wide one.

Chapter 4

Family Resemblance

I

f groups of manu­scripts had a motto, then the motto of the Core Group could be ‘easy to recognize, hard to define’. While Voigts is definitely onto something in recognizing that these codices go together, it is hard to give an exact definition for what constitutes the ‘striking physical similarity’. One learns to spot the typical mise-en-page, the best definition of which is the following passage from the 1990 article by Voigts: ‘the most striking feature of these manu­scripts is the contrast on each leaf between a highly compressed script and generous margins.’1 In spite of the visible similarity, enumerating the exact measurements that could be used to define the mise-en-page or striking physical similarity is problematic. Going by the evidence of marginal notes mentioning a year, the Core Group booklets were copied over a period of at least eight years: 1454–62. Both the size of compressed script and the exact measurements of the margins vary from manu­script to manu­script and over the years. This makes it difficult to give a single all-encompassing definition for either. The current chapter starts by discussing the codicological features which can be used to define the Voigts-Sloane Group and the difficulties related to them. It then proceeds to discuss the Family Resemblance manu­scripts which Voigts places at the fringes of the Group, comparing the evidence to the list of features given in below.

1 

Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 29.

102

Chapter 4

Easy to Recognize, Hard to Define: Assessing the Codicological Evidence The following list contains all the codicological features that Voigts mentions in her article: 1. quarto-sized paper as writing support,2 2. recurring watermarks, particularly ‘Arms of Valencia’ and ‘Bulls’s Head with St. Andrew’s Cross’, 3. single-column mise-en-page, 4. quires of 10, 5. booklet composition, 6. compressed Secretary hands, 7. small, almost certainly scribal, marginal notes, 8. headings in Bastard Secretary display hands, 9. often unused spaces for decorated initials, 10. shared subject matter: alchemy, astrology, medicine, magic, 11. multilingualism, as all manu­scripts contain Latin and Middle English, very occasionally French, 12. writing frame: 120–30 × 72–95 mm. A number of things make it difficult to give an exact definition for the group. First, the list includes codicological features found in all kinds of manu­scripts: quarto-size (feature 1), single-column ruling (feature 3), booklet composition (feature 5), unused space for decorated initials (feature 9), small marginal notes (feature 7), and using a higher-grade hand for headings (feature 8). It also includes descriptions of contents such as alchemical, medical, and magical subject matter (feature 10), and all manu­scripts in the group contain more than one language (feature 11). These are also of limited use. It would be strange to propose, for example, that any alchemical codex copied on a quarto-sized paper would be related to the Group, except in the broad sense that alchemy was of interest to many, and quarto-sized paper was a convenient format for utilitarian books. In addition to margins and hands, the list includes one codicological feature that is more unusual: quires of ten (feature 4), which stands out from the more common eight. Quires of ten can be found in Sloane 2948 and Sloane 2 

See Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 37, 47, 48, 49. The numbering is added by me.

F amily Resemblance

Figure 20. Middle English and Latin alchemy. London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118, fol. 28r.

Figure 21. The beginning of Practica urinarum, Sibling Set Text. London, British Library, MS Sloane 2320, fol. 4r. Figures © The British Library Board.

103

104

Chapter 4

Figure 22. Middle English remedies. London, British Library, MS Add. 19674, fol. 8r. © The British Library Board.

2320, but not in the two other longer codices, Sloane 1118, with its extended or shortened quires, and the non-booklet Add. 19674, which contains quires of twelve. In Sloane 1313 and 2567 the leaves are no longer in quires, which renders collation impossible. Thus, even though the preference of quires of ten is somewhat unusual, it does not apply to all of the Core Group manu­scripts. The two best defining features are the wide margins and limited writing frame (feature 12) and the compressed hands (feature 6), but as mentioned, these too vary. The writing columns in Sloane 2948, which Voigts includes in the Core Group, are taller than the 120–30 × 72–95 mm columns which most of the Group manu­scripts would fit into. The writing frame in Sloane 2948 is 143 × 93 for Booklet A, and 122/150 × 79/82 for Booklet B. Consequently, in spite of the uniform appearance, the height of the writing frame may vary by as much as 30 mm and the width by 23 mm. Similarly, while all of the manu­ scripts are copied in Secretary scripts, both the size and the appearance of the hands differ (see Figures 20–23 and contrast Figures 1, 3, and 4 in Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’).

F amily Resemblance

105

Figure 23. The French hand in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1313, fol. 154v. © The British Library Board.

Some of the hands are strikingly similar. The leaves in Sloane 2567, the Latin text in Sloane 1313, and Booklet B in Sloane 2948 look as if they could well have been bound together with Sloane 1118, 2320, or Add. 19674, but the French hands in Sloane 1313 and Booklet A in Sloane 2948 are less prototypical (contrast the French hand in Figure 23 with the ones in Figures 20–22 from Sloane 1118, 2320, and Add. 19674). One could consider sections copied by the French hand to be instances of Family Resemblance, but the hand is found on the same leaf in Sloane 1313 as a Latin hand which very clearly belongs to the group.3 Table 12 illustrates the characteristics of Sloane Group in a tabular form. 3 

However, Booklet A in Sloane 2948 shares watermarks (‘Mounts’, Heawood 67) with Sloane 1118, and the name John Kirkby appears in both. The French text in Sloane 1313 starts on the same folio as the Latin text, which together with the similar paper strongly suggests they go together.

Chapter 4

106

Table 12. Codicological features of the Core Group. Manu­script

Sloane 1118

Sloane 1313

Sloane 2320

Sloane 2567

Sloane 2948

Add. 19674

Quarto

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Paper

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Single column, frame: 120–30 × 72–95

yes

yes

yes

yes

The frame in Booklet A is larger

yes

Quired in 10s

much variation

leaves mounted separately

yes

leaves mounted separately

yes

no

Booklets

yes

fragments

yes

fragments

fragments

no

Compressed Secretary hands

yes

yes, especially Latin hand

yes

yes

yes, for Unit B

yes

Multilingual

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes Unused spaces (also some for decorated decorated initials initials)

yes

yes

yes

yes

no, the scribe has supplied initials

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

alchemy

herbals

medicine, some alchemy

Small scribal notes in margins

yes

Subject matter

alchemy, magic

alchemy

ageing, alchemy, magic, medicine

Recurring watermarks

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

no

Headings in Bastard Secretary display hands

yes

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

F amily Resemblance

107

Watermarks and their Value as Evidence Voigts also mentions a ‘series of recurring watermarks’ which are found in the Group.4 She specifies two watermarks in particular, both of which occur in four codices, including three Core Group codices and one Sibling Group codex: the ‘Bull’s head with St. Andrew’s Cross’ and ‘Arms of Valencia’. It is true that one repeatedly encounters these two when working with the group. These watermarks also form a link between the Core and the Sibling Group, since the first can be found in Trinity O.1.77 and the second in Boston 19.5 However, this still leaves us with the questions: 1. How strong a connection is the appearance of watermarks, which can also be found in a number of other sources in the period? 2. And how should we interpret variation and outliers? To start with the first question: these are common watermarks, which can be found in a number of sources in the second half of the fifteenth century. Heawood discovered a Bull’s head with St Andrew’s Cross in the Paston letters from 1444–79 and books printed by William Caxton in 1477, 1480, 1481, 1482, and 1486. This watermark can also be found in John Crophill’s commonplace book (London, British Library, MS Harley 1735, discussed below) and Add. 5467, but not in the section that Voigts lists as having family resemblance. Heawood similarly lists the ‘Arms of Valencia’ as common in the Paston letters before 1459 and 1470, and the Caxton books from 1477 and 1483. Incidentally, all of these sources have some connection to the Voigts-Sloane Group. William Ebesham was working for John Paston on a number of commissions, which forms a link to the Paston letters. He was also located in Westminster, the place in which Caxton set up his printing press, which forms a link to Caxton’s book. Harley 1735, John Crophill’s commonplace book, can also be considered to display some family resemblance to the Core Group, as can Add. 5467, but not in the agricultural booklet in which this watermark appears. Consequently, we need to ask whether all of these instances should be taken as having family resemblance, and whether there is necessarily the 4 

On watermarks (feature 2), Voigts notes: ‘An analysis of watermarks, however, reveals repeated use of paper from the same mills in Group manu­scripts and, to a lesser degree, in some of the related codices’; ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 28. 5  Unfortunately, three of the Sibling Group codices, Sloane 3566 and the two Second Generation manu­scripts, are copied on parchment and cannot confirm or disqualify this assumption.

108

Chapter 4

implication that all these sources had the access to the same paper supplier or whether it was simply that these types of paper were very widely used from the 1450s to the 1470s. When it comes to Core Group quires, there are also several other watermarks that occur several times (which Voigts also notes). Three — ‘Mounts’, ‘Paschal lamb’ and ‘Scissors’ — can be found in two or more manu­scripts, and five more can be found in an individual Core Group manu­script. The variety of watermarks found in Sloane 1118 is particularly striking, as it reveals that quires were often extended by adding paper from different paper stocks, which supports the impression given by the manu­script appearance of an ongoing compilation process of alchemical texts in a booklet form. It also gives some connection for the ‘Mounts’ of Booklet A in Sloane 2948 and the ‘Scissors’ of the Sibling Group booklet of Sloane 2320 to the group. The watermark, which Heawood calls ‘Mounts’ (Heawood 67), is rarer than the ‘Bull’s head with St. Andrew’s Cross’ and the ‘Arms of Valencia’, and it could be significant that it connects these three Core Group manu­scripts.6 The long Middle English codex Add. 19674, however, is something of an outlier, as its watermark ‘Bull’s head with crescent’ does not appear elsewhere in the group. Other watermarks which appear only a single time include ‘letter M’, ‘unicorn passant’, flower’, the ‘grapes’ watermark of the John Kirkby booklet in Sloane 1118, and scales. The fact that the two most common watermarks can be found in Trinity O.1.77 and Boston 19 does provide a connection between the Core and the Sibling Groups, but since the mere appearance of watermarks cannot be considered to indicate any connection beyond the popularity of the paper at the time of copying, it is possible that the appearance of these two watermarks in these two codices is no more than a coincidence — the other three Sibling Group codices are unfortunately no help, since they are made from parchment and do not contain watermarks.

6 

Heawood, ‘Sources of Early English Paper-Supply’ (p. 297), lists it in ‘Durham Chapter: Capit. Gen., 1435–56 and Letter to Bp. of Exeter [1397–1400]’, as well as in a Paston letter during the time of Edward IV.

F amily Resemblance

109

Family Resemblance: London, British Library, MS Additional 5467 Fols 224 (Sloane Group relevant fols 195–224v). Paper, partly damaged. Frame 225 × 158 (/148 × 97) mm, containing twenty-three to twenty-eight lines per page. Typical British Library binding dated 1982. Writing on the spine reads: COLLATION: 112, 2–310, signatures.

Having discussed the codicological features which can be used to define the Voigts-Sloane Group and the difficulties related to them, it is now time to turn attention to those manu­scripts which Voigts names Family Resemblance, since they share either codicological or textual features, but not very many of them. One of the manu­scripts identified by Voigts as having Family Resemblance is British Library MS Add. 5467, a thick codex of 224 numbered folios, labelled as MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS BRITISH LIBRARY ADDITIONAL MS 5467. It is described in the handwritten British Library catalogue as ‘a small quarto volume fols 223 written on paper in the time of Henry VI much injured by damp and imperfect in the end’. As the label suggests, the contents of the codex are very miscellaneous, and the majority of texts included in the volume are neither medical nor alchemical. Instead, there are texts on agriculture (fols 1–22v) and a poem by Lydgate (fol. 67),7 ‘The Prophecy of Merlin’ (fol. 71), as well as the biography of James Stewarde, last Kynge of Scotys (fols 72–85). There are also some medical items, including Medycynes of Maister William du Jordyne (?) gyven to Kyng Henry Regent and Heriter of the Reume of France (fol. 71). Folios 211 to 227 contain parts of the Governance of Kynges and Princes translated into English by John Shirley, and part of the Secretum secretorum tradition.8 Voigts notes on this part of the codex (fols 195–204) that it ‘resembles the Group codices in the section written by the final hand […], although the watermark is not found in the other manu­scripts under consideration’. Indeed, the section in question satisfies a number of criteria discussed above. It is written on quarto-sized paper, quired in tens, with a single column writing frame of 125 × 75 mm, which fits within the typical measurements (120–30 × 72–95), even though the pages lack the very visible frame ruling that is found in some of the Core Group manu­scripts (Figure 2 above is a good example). A pair of leaves, fols 198r–199r in particular, would not look out place if bound in many of the other Core Group quires. There are also head7 

Incipit: ‘oh. dere jou first thi selfe enable/ withall thyn hert to vertuous disciplyne/[…].’ See Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 27, and Secretum secretorum, ed. by Manzalaoui, pp. 227–313. 8 

110

Chapter 4

ings in Bastard Secretary, which is of higher grade than the Secretary hand used in the main text, and unused spaces left for initials. The hands are slightly larger than the tiny compressed Secretary hands found in the most prototypical Core Group quires, but there are also some slightly larger hands found in quires included by Voigts as part of the Group. However, they are no larger than Booklet A in Sloane 2948 or the French text in Sloane 1313. The section identified by Voigts as having family resemblance is not an independent codicological unit. It shares watermarks with most of the manu­script, which is also written in single columns with brownish ink and Secretary hands, although the size of the writing frame is typically c. 130–50 × c. 90, that is, the writing blocks are taller than in most Core Group quires (but similar to Booklet A in Sloane 2948). Collation of the manu­script reveals that the manu­script contains an independent booklet at the beginning. The first two quires (fols 1–22v) are recognizable as a booklet by the absence of a catchword at the end of the second quire (feature 4), empty leaves at the end of the second quire (feature 9, fols 21v–22v) and later scribbles at the end of the quire (feature 10). These quires also contain an independent watermark, which happens to be ‘Bull’s head with St. Andrew’s Cross’: one of the characteristic watermarks of the Sloane Group (the watermark is visible of fols 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 19). However, the size of the writing frame for this booklet is larger than in the Core Group (c. 150 × 100 mm.), and the pages lack the characteristic frame ruling. The booklet contains an agricultural treatise in Middle English, which includes arboreal medicine on fols 20v–21v. The rest of the codex has some variation in quire length, although, apart from Booklet A, the later quires share a watermark (fols 23–204). The section that Voigts identifies as resembling the Core Group is connected to a longer codex by shared watermarks as well as catchwords from fol. 90v to the end.9 Since the section where the measurements resemble the Core Group is not an independent codicological unit, and since similarity in the size of the writing frame may be accidental, I am inclined to think this manu­script does not have enough in common with the Group to make a certain connection. If the arboreal booklet were accepted as part of the Group, it would extend both the measurements for the writing frame acceptable for inclusion and the typical subject matter of the Group by including agriculture and arboreal medicine. 9 

Unfortunately, I was not able to identify this watermark. It may be a monogrammatic letter in a circle, but none of the instances I found in Briquet quite matched.

F amily Resemblance

111

Family Resemblance: London, Wellcome Library, MS 784 Fols 32. Paper, General condition good, some leaves stained by damp, especially towards the end of the codex. 200/205  ×  125/130  mm. Frame 130  ×  73/80  mm, twenty-four to twenty-eight lines per page (for the Sloane Sibling Text). Modern calf-gilt binding, with an inside cover of marbled paper. Text on the spine reads: LIBER DE JUDICIIS URINAE.10

COLLATION: 112, 2–310.11 Signatures j.1–j.4 can be seen on fols 13r–16r, in the second gathering. The fact that they start from j. may indicate that the gatherings were originally part of a larger codex. No catchwords are visible: they were probably lost when the manu­script was cropped for rebinding.12 The second Family Resemblance manu­script, London, Wellcome Library, MS 784, is a small manu­script which contains one of the texts found in the Sibling Group manu­scripts, the epistolary version of the plague treatise attributed to John of Burgundy. The text is split into two parts. The epistolary address, ‘dilectissime frater’ (dear brother), in which the writer advises the reader not to fear death and to make sure his soul is healthy, appears on the first leaf of the manu­script. The medical part appears after uroscopic material. The organization seems to be intentional rather than a result of later rebinding. Overall, the codex contains medical texts, including uroscopic treatises, remedies, and astrological texts, mainly in Middle English. The types of texts, the astrological and uroscopic treatises, would seem to be focused on making prognoses, but the manu­script does not contain tables or coloured jordans. The epistolary version of John of Burgundy is the only plague treatise found in the manu­script and the only Latin item. In addition, there are some Latin marginal comments. This is a quarto-sized manu­script, with watermarks appearing in the gutter. Despite the relatively short length of the codex, it contains three watermarks, showing that several stacks of paper were used for it. The ‘Bull’s head with

10 

The binding is not in very good condition, and the covers are separate. Moorat, Catalogue of Western Manu­scripts. Moorat (pp. 578–79) mentions that the margins have been cropped in rebinding, which also shows in the fact that some marginal comments have been cropped at the outer edges of the pages (see e.g. fols 3r, 5r, 7r, 11r, 19v, 20v). Signatures are also partly missing because of the cropping. The original leaf size may well have been the same as in the Core Group codices. 12  The manu­script was described by Moorat, Catalogue of Western Manu­scripts, pp. 578–79. 11 

112

Chapter 4

crown’ can be found in the first quire,13 a ‘hand or glove’ watermark in quire two and three, and ‘the horse with a shield’ in the third one only. The manu­script is copied in rounded Anglicana media.14 The hand is a book hand Anglicana, belonging to a professional scribe. The manu­script is written in a single hand throughout. It does contain some decoration, including ‘ornamental initials in blue and red, with marginal decorations on fol 1 and fol. 13: other initials in blue, paragraph marks in red’.15 Moorat dates the MS to c. 1425, which is likely to be too early. The family resemblance noted by Voigts can be seen in the writing area, which is a single column and which would therefore fit within the Core Group criteria. However, as she also notes that ‘the Anglicana hand, however, is not closely related to Group hands’.16 Moreover, the watermark in this manu­script, Bull’s head with a crown, cannot be found in any of the Core manu­scripts. The epistolary of John of Burgundy lacks recipes at the end which are present in all of the Sloane Siblings.

Family Resemblance: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson C.815 Fols 32. Paper. Damaged. 205 × 143 mm. Frame 135/140 mm × 75/ 80 mm, containing twenty-three to twenty-five lines per page for the Sloane fragments. An early vellum binding, a paper slip containing the ex libris of RIC: RAWLINSON in the inside cover.17 Writing on the spine: Old Physical Receipts. Temp. Edw. I.M.S.

Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson C.815, in contrast to Wellcome 784, contains a fragment that is immediately recognizable to be in the Core Group mise-en-page. The fragment is found in a medical manu­script, the majority of which (fols 1–22) is post-medieval, written in 1554 by Giles Garton, as the text on the spine and the first leaf indicates. After the main section, the last ten leaves consist of independent fragments of utilitarian-looking paper leaves 13 

According to Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 55, the watermark corresponds with Piccard Ochsenkopf, Abt. xv, no. 49. See Piccard, Wasserzeichnen ii. 14  Moorat, Catalogue of Western Manu­scripts, pp. 578–89, calls it ‘a semi-cursive rounded gothic hand, 24–29 lines to a page’. 15  Moorat, Catalogue of Western Manu­scripts, pp. 578–89. 16  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 27. 17  ‘Sigillum Univ. Oxon. Diplomati RIC: RAWLINSON. pro gradu. Doctoris Legum appensum.’

F amily Resemblance

113

from medical and scientific manu­scripts, one of which is a pair of leaves, part of the Core Group. The leaves are now mounted separately and do not have watermarks or signatures to support any connection to the Core Group. A slip of paper between the leaves reads: ‘This MS is the oldest of all the Reign of Ed. 4.’ The Core Group folios are undecorated. The headings are in Bastard Secretary display hand, with no space left for coloured initials, thus resembling the medical manu­script Add. 19674. The hand is a Secretary script which is slightly larger than the most compressed forms of Secretary found in the Group manu­scripts. Bastard Secretary display hand is used for the headings. The Sloane Group section (fols 30–31) consists of gynaecological and obstetrical recipes and charms, and (fol. 31v) laxative recipes.18 The Sloane fragment is in English, whereas all of the marginal comments are in Latin. Folio 30r in the Sloane fragment contains scribbles in the margin, including charms and remedies, one of these a charm against bleeding from the nose, a remedy for it, and a couple of recipes, one against the pestilence. The scribbles are in a single sixteenth-century Secretary hand. They are evidence of the kind of use for which the wide margins were possibly intended. The same hand can also be found in other fragments in the codex, but not in the main part of it. The comments are in the margins in the area affected by the damp, but they do not seem to be affected by it, which, along with the fact that the damp has affected only the Sloane fragments and the couple of leaves next to it, suggests that the comments were made after the damp affected the Sloane fragments. These two leaves do not contain the small scribal notes.

Family Resemblance: London, British Library, MS Harley 1735 and John Crophill Even though Voigts does not include it in her original description, a section in John Crophill’s commonplace book, London, British Library, MS Harley 1735, also displays at least some family resemblance (See Figure 24).19 The middle part of the codex (fols 29r–36v) contains an acephalous treatise on medicine and medical astrology, apparently copied to Crophill by a professional scribe.20 18 

See Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 51. I have, however, discussed the manu­script with her, and she agrees that the mise-enpage bears some resemblance to the Core Group. The manu­script was edited in its entirety by Ayoub, ‘John Crophill’s Books’. My manu­script description owes a great deal to her much more comprehensive study of this manu­script, for which I am indebted to her. 20  The contents are an anthology of texts related to prognosis and treatment, using methods 19 

114

Chapter 4

Figure 24. The middle section of London, British Library, MS Harley 1735, fol. 29r: medical treatises copied to Crophill by a professional scribe. © The British Library Board.

F amily Resemblance

115

The manu­script contains within the same covers examples of three different kinds of book trade and production in fifteenth-century England. It has deservedly received attention for the final part (fols 36v–52v), which contains Crophill’s record of his patients, making it a rare record of the cases treated by a medical practitioner in England in the Middle English period.21 The first part (fols 1–28v) comes from an earlier parchment manu­script, which Crophill seems to have purchased second-hand, containing prognosticatory material and cookery recipes. It is, however, the middle section which is of interest for the present study. This section consists of eight paper leaves, now mounted separately, which makes the original quiring difficult to determine.22 Lois Jean Ayoub notes that folios 29r–36v3 are in Hand B, belonging to a professional scribe. This unit is ‘paper, 215 × 150 mm, size of leaf varies; lineation and writing space also vary’.23 The size of the writing frame is slightly larger than for the Core Group, 142–45 × 92 mm, but nearly the same as for Booklet A in Sloane 2948 or the Family Resemblance manu­script Add. 5467. The hand, which definitely belongs to a professional scribe, uses Secretary letter forms, and as in the case of Add. 5467, is clearly different from the tiny current in the day, including astrology, uroscopy, and bloodletting. While the treatises are different, the information contained in them is similar to the Sibling Texts. The contents are perilous days and good days (fols 29r–30r, incipit: ‘The first day of clean August the first day of clean December and if any man or woman’, eVK 0499.00; incipit: ‘Bede saith that in the year been three days with their nights in which no woman’, eVK 1234.00); suitable days for letting blood (fol. 30r, ‘every lym of man is rewlid by a signe of þe zodiac’, no exact match in eVK, but there are several related incipits, which seem to be translations of the same treatise); information on zodiacal signs which govern each limb (fols  30r–v); an astrological text on the eight spheres (fol. 30v) and the diameter of the earth (fols 30v–31r); a treatise on the four elements (fols 30v–31r); a treatise on the seven planets (fols 31r–33r); another treatise on the four elements (fols 33r–33v, eVK 8190.00), and one on how they are reflected by the four complexions, the four ages of man, and parts of the body (fols 34r–35v); a uroscopy (fols 34v–35v); as well as two Latin recipes for kindling fire in water. Cf. Ayoub, ‘John Crophill’s Books’, pp. 7–8. 21  For example, Rossell Hope Robbins calls it ‘the most detailed manu­script to throw light on the life and function of the mediaeval leech’; Robbins, ‘Medical Manu­scripts in Middle English’, p. 411. 22  To quote Ayoub, ‘John Crophill’s Books’, p. 18, the pages are ‘re-edged, making collation difficult. Probably 18 (lacks 1 at start), 28, 38 (fols 29–35, fols 36–43, and fols 42–52, of which fol. 50 is an insert). The leaf missing at the beginning of Part II was probably lost early, as pagination in ink (which pre-dates foliation in pencil) numbers fol. 29r as 1’, ‘contains closely related material’. 23  Ayoub, ‘John Crophill’s Books’, p. 17.

116

Chapter 4

compressed Core Group Secretary hands, but could well be grouped with the handful of larger hands which Voigts also allows in the Group.24 The scribe used black ink that differs from the brownish ink characteristic of the Group. Other Core Group features include small marginal headings added by the scribe, but the manu­script lacks the headings in Bastard Secretary hand. The watermark is ‘Bull’s head with St Andrew’s Cross’, found in many of the Core Group manu­scripts.25 The same watermark can also be found in early leaves of the third part, the one containing Crophill’s own writing. However, fol. 45 contains another watermark: ‘grapes’. The watermark is of the same family, but not the same as in Booklet N of Sloane 1118, the one which contains a reference to John Kirkby. The second part can thus be said to contain some family resemblance to the Core Group. The family resemblance is in a somewhat similar mise-en-page, although the ‘Bull’s head with St Andrew’s Cross’, one of the two most characteristic watermarks in the group, does appear. Notwithstanding, a number of other criteria are not quite met: the hand is larger, the ink different, and the manu­scripts lacks headings in Bastard Secretary script.

Family Resemblance: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS e Musaeo 155 Finally, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS e Musaeo 155, a thick Baconian codex of 699 numbered folios, connected to John Cokkes (d. c. 1475), who was active in Oxford as a teacher and a medical practitioner, contains textual overlap with one Core Group manu­script, Sloane 2320, as well as one Sibling Group manu­script.26 24 

Ayoub’s notes on the script: ‘The second hand in the manu­script (Hand B) begins on fol. 29r and is in a cursive script closely resembling the Secretary script depicted in 10.iii in Parkes (p. 10), with long ascenders and descenders in relation to the body of the letters […]. The script continues to fol. 36v, where the explicit states quod Iohn Crophill. However, there are clear-cut differences between this script and Crophill’s handwriting (Hand C) which follows immediately in the text on fol. 36v’; Ayoub, ‘John Crophill’s Books’, p. 28. 25  ‘A watermark consisting of a bull’s head appears on several folios (head alone, fols 31, 32, 36; horns alone, fols 35, 39, 50). On fols 35 and 50 a cross is visible above the horns. Heawood (‘Sources of Early English Paper-Supply’, p.  289) describes this watermark as Bull’s head, with St Andrew’s Cross above (Heawood, no. 18) and notes that it occurs in Paston letters variously dated from 1444 to 1479, and in Caxton books of 1477, 1480, 1481, 1482, and 1486. A corresponding watermark in Briquet is described under the heading ‘Bull’s head with eyes and nostrils’. Heawood cites Briquet in suggesting an origin in the south of France or Piedmont for paper with this mark’; Ayoub, ‘John Crophill’s Books’, p. 26. 26  ‘In the case of John Cokkes of Oxford we are lucky enough to have preserved one of the few attested writings based on lectures on medicine and science given by academics in the

F amily Resemblance

117

The manu­script was brought to Voigts’s attention fairly late, and she merely notes in a footnote that the codex ‘may have relevance for the study of the Sloane Group’, as it contains De retardatione accidentium senectutis, and mentions the initials R. B., found in many Sibling manu­scripts. What she omits is that the manu­script also contains a Latin version of The Book of Quintessence by John of Rupescissa, here attributed to Roger Bacon like in Sloane 2320 (Booklet G); the colophon notes that the book was corrected by John Cokkes: ‘Explicit liber 3us de consideracione quinte essencie secundum magistrum Rogerum Bacon correctus et scriptus per Johannem Cokkes manibus suis propriis Oxonie’ (but Books i–ii are only corrected by him). The manu­script, which is a collection of Baconian works, is a very beautiful volume in good condition and in a medieval binding. It is a parchment codex, but the size of the writing frame fits the Sloane Group dimensions. The ruling resembles Core Group frame ruling, but the work is more careful, whereas Core Group folios often give the impression that someone drew the margins very quickly. The pages have typical fifteenth-century red and blue decorated initials, which are similar to Trinity O.1.77 and Sloane 3566, but were also very common elsewhere in the fifteenth century. The manu­script therefore has some family resemblance. However, a close examination of the Book of Quintessence and De retardatione accidentium senectutis reveals too many differences to consider them as textually close to the copies in the Trinity manu­script and Sloane 2320. The Book of Quintessence in the Trinity manu­script seems to be a different abbreviated version, and textual differences make it clear that the person who copied the text into the end of Trinity O.1.77 did not use Cokkes’s volume as the exemplar, or vice versa. There are also considerable differences compared to the version in Sloane 2320.27 fifteenth century. King’s College, Cambridge, MS 16 part 2 contains lectures given in Oxford by Cokkes at some time after he took the Bachelor of Medicine degree there in 1450. Cokkes was already a beneficed priest when he began his studies in Oxford in 1447, and he continued to live in Oxford and to practise medicine there until his death, which had occurred by April 1475. On one occasion Cokkes was summoned to chancery to answer for having withheld evidence relating to the death of one of his patients, John Walweyn (between 1476 and 1472). Cokkes never went on to take a degree as doctor of medicine, but evidently he lectured at Oxford while a bachelor’; Jones, ‘Information and Science’, p. 106; cf. also Talbot and Hammond, The Medical Practitioners in Medi­eval England, pp. 134–36. For information on the manu­script, see Macray, Catalogi codicum. 27  Sloane 2320 (fol. 75v): ‘[ J]Ndago celi nostri .id est. corporis nostri terre’, e Musaeo 155 (fol. 434v): ‘Jndago celi nostri seu 5e essencie’, Trinity O.1.77 (fol 173r): ‘Jndago celi nostri

118

Chapter 4

De retardatione accidentium senectutis, which appears in Sloane 2320, is a better match, but comparing the two texts reveals that they too are not closely related.28 The treatise in Sloane 2320 only includes the first two books. The incipits to the work and book two are reasonably close, but the incipit to book one reads ‘Capitulum primum de causis Senectutis’ (Sloane 2320, fol. 59r) and ‘De vtilitate istius exemple’ (e Musaeo 155, fol. 594v). Moreover, I counted eight small differences on the first folio of Sloane 2320, often a word missing from Sloane 2320 or slightly different word order to the Bodleian manu­script.29 The Sloane codices may display characteristic disregard for textual accuracy,30 but the number of differences indicates textual distance.

The Case of Family Resemblance When examining the five Family Resemblance manu­scripts, one constantly runs into problems of definition. Voigts does not name a framework, but the terminology she uses for describing her Sloane Group seems to be drawn from .id est. corporis terrarum siue coniunctione quinte essencie’; Sloane 2320: ‘quod oportet rem inquerere que vero sic habeat ad respectum 4or qualitatum quibus compositum est corpus nostrum’, e Musaeo 155: ‘quod oportet rem querere que sic se habeat respectu 4 qualitatum quibus compositum est corpus nostrum’, Trinity O.1.77: ‘quod oportet rem querere que sic se habet respectu quatuor qualitatum quibus compositum est corpus nostrum’; Sloane 2320: ‘philosophi autem disercissum vocaverunt celum quintam essenciam . respectu 4or elementorum quia in se celum est incorruptibile & immortale’; e Musaeo 155: ‘philosophi . autem . vocauerunt celum 5am essenciam respectu 4 elementorum; quia in se celum est incorrumptibile & inmutabile’, Trinity O.1.77: ‘Philosophi uocauerunt celum quintam essenciam . respectu 4or elementorum quia in se celum est in-(fol. 173v)corruptibile & inmutabile.’ 28  The editors of Bacon, De retardatione accidentium, ed. by Little and Withington, who have collated Sloane 2320 as well as e Musaeo 155, do not comment on the connections of Sloane 2320 to other manu­scripts. They do note a correspondence between e Musaeo 155 and Manchester, Chetham Hospital, A. 5. 24, stating that the Manchester version ‘follows E [e Musaeo 155] so closely as to leave little doubt that it was copied from that MS’, p. xx. They consider e Musaeo 155 to be ‘the work of careful scribes copying good MSS.’ (p. xx). 29  Sloane 2320 (fol.  56r): ‘caloris augmentatione’, e Musaeo 155 (fol.  591r): ‘caloris naturalis augmentacione’; Sloane 2320: ‘stirpe’, e Musaeo 155: ‘sturpe’; Sloane 2320: ‘altissimus dominus’, e Musaeo 155: ‘altissimus deus’; Sloane 2320: ‘ibi inueni vanitatem’, e Musaeo 155: ‘inueni ibi vanitatem’; Sloane 2320 (fol. 56v): ‘homine naturales’, e Musaeo: ‘homines naturales’; Sloane 2320: ‘vel quia sepulta sunt’, e Musaeo 155: ‘vel sepulta sunt’; Sloane 2320: ‘vt vrem sermonem minime consuetum vt altissimus deus conseruet vobis corporis vires’, e Musaeo 155: ‘vrem sermonem vt altissimus deus conseruet in vobis corporis vires’; Sloane 2320: ‘defendere ab accidentibus senectutis’, e Musaeo 155: ‘defendere se ab accidentibus senectutis’. 30  Voigts, ‘The Master of the King’s Stillatories’.

F amily Resemblance

119

the Wittgensteinian notion of family resemblance, the idea that things may be connected to a group by a series of overlapping similarities, not all of which are needed to be related. This leads to two questions which one would ideally need to answer: 1. Which features are most important for defining a codicological unit as part of the Core Group? 2. How many of them are needed to identify a codicological unit as a part of the Group? Many of the features are standard fare in late medieval manu­scripts, and it would be absurd to propose either that the appearance of Bastard Secretary hand or even proportions of the writing frame would be enough to constitute a relation, since the first one was a standard book hand in the day and the latter could just as well be accidental. At the same time, it is clear that Voigts is definitely right to recognize similarity in these manu­scripts. There is a core to the Group. It consists of quartosized paper manu­scripts, with a very compressed Secretary hand and characteristic small writing frame. This can be found in a number of booklets bound in Sloane 1118, 2320, 2567, the Latin text in Sloane 1313, and Booklet B in Sloane 2948 as well as seven quires in the longer codex Add. 19674. These manu­scripts had a shared origin. Roger Lass once compared the work of a historical linguist to a crime scene.31 The analogy works even better for a codicological study with a strict focus such as this one. This is detective work: the aim is to assess the evidence and determine whether a Family Resemblance manu­script is directly connected to the Group or not. From a wider perspective, it might be of interest if someone performed a similar crime elsewhere, as it might reflect interesting patterns in society, but that does not make the perpetrators guilty of the case under investigation. Similarly, the immediate object of this chapter is to look at the very concrete material evidence that is left of book production 550 years ago and to make a verdict as to whether the similarity of a particular Family Resemblance suspect is sufficient for making a direct connection. The codices with family resemblance are related to the Group either by sharing texts or by sharing an unspecified number of codicological features. Wellcome 784 and e Musaeo 155 are connected by shared texts, the latter also

31 

Lass, ‘Ut custodiant litteras’, p. 21.

120

Chapter 4

by slight resemblance in the writing frame, while Add. 5467, Rawlinson C.815, and Harley 1735 are connected by physical appearance. Assessing textual connections is straightforward. A direct connection would be if the shared texts were textually close enough to conclude that they were used as an exemplar for one of the Voigts-Sloane Group codices, that they used a Group text as an exemplar, or that both used a shared exemplar. With both of these manu­scripts, the results are negative. Wellcome 724 shares one text with the Sibling Group, but its version differs textually from the Sibling Set Text. E Musaeo 155 looked initially promising, because of the Roger Bacon connection; however, rather disappointingly the versions in the codex did not turn out to be closely related textually. The writing frame in e Musaeo fits the proportions that are standard for the Core Group, even though the craftsmanship is of better quality in the Bodleian codex, so the manu­script could perhaps also be considered to have physical family resemblance; but without textual overlap it is better not to make too much of this. Consequently, I do not think either of these codices are connected to the group. Assessing the codicological evidence is more problematic, due to reasons discussed in the beginning of this chapter. For Add. 5467 and Harley 1735, I do not think the resemblance is quite sufficient for making a definite connection to the group. The quires Voigts names are part of a longer codicological unit, which it is connected to by watermarks and signatures. Other sections in this codicological unit do not fit within the definition, as they have a larger writing frame. Furthermore, the watermark is not found in the Core Group. The writing frame in Harley is slightly larger, and the hand not quite typical. The only manu­script for which a connection is plausible is Rawlinson C.815, which contains a fragment that fits within Core Group characteristics. The fragment in question is in Middle English and the hand is slightly larger than the prototypical tiny secretary. Unfortunately, the two leaves do not contain watermarks which could help with the identification. To conclude, my verdict is that only one of the Family Resemblance manu­scripts is directly relevant, and the others are merely similar, as they share features typical of book production in the late fifteenth century.

Chapter 5

Multilingualism

I

n addition to its connection to the London book trade before the age of printing, the Sloane Group is often cited as an example of ‘the relative equality’ of Latin and English in medical and scientific writing in the second half of the fifteenth century. Like other things related to the Group, this view is based on the original work by Voigts as well as her surveys of late medieval medical manu­scripts. In her 1996 article on medical translations from Latin to the vernacular, she describes the Group in the following way: These codices all contain both Latin and English texts, and — in one instance — French. […] The English texts usually either precede or follow different Latin texts on the same subject, and the texts in each language are of equal sophistication.1

This view has informed later studies, including those by Päivi Pahta and Monica Green, as well as my own earlier article on the Trinity manu­script.2 However, none of them looked at multilingualism up close and in detail, focusing on individual instances of switching between languages. This chapter aims to address this deficiency. It consists first of an account of multilingualism in medieval England, and progresses to discussing how the use of Latin and Middle English in the Voigts-Sloane Group corresponds to usage of the languages in other types of medical texts, based on previous scholarship.3 Particular emphasis is placed on genre and text type in the domains of medicine, astrology, alchemy, and magic. 1 

Voigts, ‘What’s the Word?’, p. 816. See, e.g., Green, ‘The Possibilities of Literacy’; Pahta, ‘Code-Switching in Medi­e val Medical Writing’; and Taavitsainen, ‘Transferring Classical Discourse Conventions’. 3  See Hunt, ‘Code-Switching in Medical Texts’; Hunt, ‘Languages of Medical Writing’; Pahta, ‘Code-Switching in Medi­e val Medical Writing’; Pahta, ‘On Structures of Code2 

122

Chapter 5

The Vernacularization of Medical Writing Throughout the Middle Ages England was a multilingual society, but especially in the Middle English period, when literate members of society were likely to have at least some degree of literacy in Latin, French, and Middle English. Of the three languages, Latin had the highest status. It was the language of the Church and academia, and was also used for law, administration, and literature, along with its function as the lingua franca of Western Europe, which it retained until the end of the medieval period.4 Anglo-Norman French and Middle English had a variety of roles. The latter gained ground from the former, especially towards the end of the Middle English period.5 Before 1350, English was mainly used as a spoken vernacular which was rarely written. When it was written, the texts were ‘composed with a very particular, local readership in mind’.6 As the Middle English period progressed, English acquired new written usages from Latin and Anglo-Norman, using models obtained from them.7 The state of Anglo-Norman was long a question mark. Fortunately, scholarship into the insular variety of French has developed in recent years and cast light on our understanding of the language. We now have resources like the Anglo-Norman Hub and large-scale, corpus-based studies such as Richard Ingham’s The Transmission of Anglo-Norman.8 According to Ingham, widespread bilingualism was the norm, and ‘insular French was […] maintained largely by interaction among fluent bilinguals’. He argues that the literate layers of English society appear to have learned French at school from a very early age, and later learned Latin through this second language. English clerks writing Anglo-Norman do not make any more characteristic second-language learner mistakes than their continental counterparts. This situation appears to have deteriorated very rapidly after 1350, which Ingham connects to mortality Switch­ing’; Meecham-Jones, ‘“Gadryng Togedre”’; Machan, ‘The Visual Pragmatics of CodeSwitching’; Schendl, ‘William Harvey’s Prelectiones anatomie universalis (1616)’. 4  See, e.g., Schendl, ‘Linguistic Aspects of Code-Switching’, pp. 77–78. 5  Schendl, ‘Linguistic Aspects of Code-Switching’, p.  77; Pahta and Nurmi, ‘Social Stratification and Patterns of Code-Switching’, pp. 420–24. 6  Horobin and Smith, An Introduction to Middle English, p. 28. 7  See, e.g., Schendl, ‘Mixed-Language Texts’, p. 53; Taavitsainen, ‘Transferring Classical Dis­course Conventions’. 8  See the Anglo-Norman Hub; Ingham, ‘Middle English and Anglo-Norman in Contact’; Ingham, The Transmission of Anglo-Norman.

M  ultilingualism

123

among the clergy during the Black Death, at which point the English vernacular truly began to gain ground. The date 1350 is important, since it also marks the point after which the use of vernacular English extended to new kinds of medical and scientific works, previously the domain of Latin and French. According to Voigts, the biggest wave of vernacularization took place in the final century of the Middle English period, between 1375 and 1475. By 1475, the full range of university disciplines can be found as vernacular translations, including the more sophisticated type of academic astronomy, as well as treatises on the seven liberal arts.9 The earliest vernacular translations of alchemical treatises can also be dated to the fifteenth century.10 The period from which the Voigts-Sloane manu­scripts survive, the latter half of the fifteenth century, is fairly late in the vernacularization process, and the manu­scripts are of interest because they are commercially copied manu­ scripts rather than university texts from a period when even the most learned of genres could be found as vernacular translations.

Domains, Genres, and Text Types When one begins to look at the functions of different languages used in medical and alchemical texts in detail, the situation becomes rather complex, especially since the Core Group contains such a wide range of treatises. The analysis aims at determining whether the use of Latin and Middle English corresponds to particular subject matter or the type of treatise. I use a three-part division into domains, genres, and text types, following Schendl:11 Domains: medicine, alchemy, astrology, magic Genres: uroscopy, plague treatise, a regimen of health, practica, herbal, etc. Text types: treatise, recipe, poem, (commentary), (dialogue) etc. 9 

Voigts, ‘What’s the Word?’, pp.  816–17, describes five manu­scripts from c.  1475 in support of her claim, including Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS  Lyell 37, which contains technical astronomical tables in English — astronomy being central in the academic training of physicians — Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.14.52, subject of the two-volume monograph (Tavormina, ‘Roger Bacon: Two Extracts’), and three manu­s cripts (Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.15.18; London, Royal College of Physicians, MS 384; New York, H. P. Kraus, Bute 13) containing a Middle English translation of Ephemerides by Regiomontanus. 10  Pereira, ‘Alchemy and the Use of Vernacular Languages’, p. 345. 11  Replacing his ‘text traditions’ with text types; Schendl, ‘Linguistic Aspects of CodeSwitching’, p. 79.

124

Chapter 5

The highest level of this model makes a distinction between the domains of medicine, alchemy, astrology, and magic. All subjects stemmed from different intellectual traditions or belief systems and had their own authorities and traditions of writing.12 Medicine, like today, can be given the simple definition that it is anything aimed at maintaining and restoring natural health.13 This definition can accommodate a very heterogeneous range of texts, as any material with a healing function included in a manu­script can be considered medical.14 Astrology, alchemy, and magic could all also serve a medical function, but this does not do justice to the fact that they descend from independent traditions and comprised several genres of their own. Thus, for example, considering astro-medicine to be a genre in the domain of medicine would be simplistic, when within astrology it was commonplace to make generic distinctions, such as the one between ‘natal’, ‘electional’, and ‘horary astrology’, which could all touch medical concerns.15 Astronomy and astrology, which were considered to be part of the same discipline, had a long and venerable tradition, descending from the Greeks, especially Ptolemy, whose work on mathematical astronomy, the Almagest, provided foundation of medieval cosmology. They were taught in universities as part of the undergraduate quadrivium.16 Alchemy (discussed in Chapter 3 above) was not an academic discipline but rather an illegal occult one concerned with transmuting base metals in precious ones or finding a universal medicine. As we have seen, it had vast and convoluted textual traditions of its own. Magic was non-academic and most likely paralleled by an illiterate tradition of various cunning folk who left few traces in the written record before the early modern period.17 Whereas the doctrine of humours and astrology are, from a modern point of view, best seen as pseudo-sciences, as they are based on 12 

See, e.g., Voigts, ‘Scientific and Medical Books’; Getz, Medicine in the Middle Ages; and Pahta and Taavitsainen, ‘Vernacularisation of Medical and Scientific Writing’. 13  Voigts, ‘Scientific and Medical Books’, p. 345. 14  Schnell, ‘Prolegomena to a History of Medi­e val German Medical Literature’. Three Core Group manu­scripts mainly contain treatises concerned with alchemy: the attempt to turn base metals into gold. These are Sloane 1118, Sloane 1313, and Sloane 2567. Sloane 1118 also contains treatises best described as magical (for example, Ars sintrillia, discussed in Chapter 3 above). 15  See Page, ‘Astrology’, p. 31. 16  Carey, ‘Medi­eval Latin Astrology’, p. 36. 17  See Page, Magic in Medi­eval Manu­scripts, for an introduction, and Davies, CunningFolk, for a comprehensive treatment of ‘cunning folk’.

M  ultilingualism

125

false premises, they still involve an ‘internally self-consistent logical system’.18 Magic, in contrast, bases its justification on the supernatural. Still, it is perfectly commonplace to find magical treatises in manu­scripts alongside other kinds of medical texts. In the Voigts-Sloane Core Group, some of the beliefs in texts on ageing in Sloane 2320 can be best classified as magical, as can some things in Sloane 1118 and the remedy book part of Add. 19674. Below the level of domain, I consider the levels of genre and text type to be the second and third highest. Genre is defined by text-external criteria such as audience or the purpose of a text to recognize a genre,19 whereas ‘text-types are part of a speaker’s linguistic knowledge’ and can be defined by linguistic features or the organization of information.20 Examples of text types include recipe, poem, or treatise, the last being the category to which the majority of texts in the Sloane Group belong. A treatise can be defined as a prose text that treats a certain subject in a systematic way. Another common text type is the recipe, which can be defined through linguistic criteria.21 Only one text in a Core Group manu­script (Booklet A, King’s Bath) can be classified as a poem. Text types and genres overlap. To take the most relevant example, recipes can be found in several genres, or they can be combined together as recipe collections.22

Traditions of Medical Writing With the exception of the transmutational alchemy found in Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2567, the vast majority of the contents of the Voigts-Sloane Group fall broadly under the domain of medicine, especially if one goes by the definition that anything aimed at restoring and maintaining health is medical. Consequently, the traditions of medical writing need to be discussed in more detail, especially since they have bearing on multilingualism. I follow Voigts, who has developed a three-fold system of distinguishing between specialized 18 

See Manzalaoui, ‘Chaucer and Science’, p. 225. Biber, Variation across Speech and Writing, p. 68; Suhr, Publishing for the Masses, p. 35. 20  Carroll, ‘The Middle English Recipe as a Text-Type’, pp. 27, 28; see also Görlach, ‘TextTypes and Language History’; Biber, Variation across Speech and Writing; Suhr, Publishing for the Masses. 21  Carroll, ‘The Middle English Recipe as a Text-Type’; Carroll, ‘Middle English Recipes’; Mäkinen, Between Herbals. 22  Carroll, ‘The Middle English Recipe as a Text-Type’, p. 28. 19 

126

Chapter 5

treatises, surgical treatises, and remedy books. The same division is also used in the Middle English Medical Texts (MEMT) corpus.23 The first category, academic or specialized treatises, contains knowledge derived from the theories of Greek and Arabic scholars, and introduced as part of academic curricula via scholastic medicine. Distinguishing features for the group include the central role of authoritative texts and systematic scholastic discussion in which knowledge acquired by experience is validated by verifying it against authorities.24 In the second category, surgeons and barber-surgeons operating within a guild organization constituted clearly definable groups with intellectual traditions and authorities of their own. However, surgical treatises can also be very learned, as they were compiled by university masters as academic textbooks.25 The third category, remedy books, existed as early as the Old English period. Vernacular texts that predate 1350 belong to this tradition, and they include both English and Anglo-Norman collections (language mixing is also common).26 The bulk of the remedy-book content is intended for treatment of various symptoms, and the remedies may include ‘minor surgical treatments, non-theoretical phlebotomy […], cupping, diets, charms, prayers, ritual action, and that element that bulks largest — recipes’.27 Remedy books differ from academic treatises in that they lack theoretical discussion and clear justification of the soundness of the procedures.28 It is important not to exaggerate how separate these traditions are from each other. While early medieval medical works may contain traces of native Germanic or Celtic traditions, such as the belief that sickness was caused by elves, by the late Middle Ages, scholastic medicine and especially Galenism were considered authoritative.29 Their influence was felt far outside the academia. Surgical treatises are based on the same theoretical foundation, and the notebook of a non-licensed rural part-time practitioner like John Crophill (Harley 1735, see Chapter 4 above) does not reflect separate ‘folk medicine’, 23 

Voigts, ‘Medical Prose’. See, e.g., Jacquart, ‘Medical Scholasticism’, and Taavitsainen, ‘Transferring Classical Discourse Conventions’. 25  Pahta and Taavitsainen, ‘Vernacularisation of Scientific and Medical Writing’, p. 15. 26  Getz, Medicine in the Middle Ages, 1998, p. 45; Norri, Names of Sicknesses in English, p. 26, 27  Voigts, ‘Medical Prose’, p. 323. 28  Jacquart, ‘Medical Scholasticism’, p. 199. 29  For a thorough discussion of elves as a cause of sickness in Anglo-Saxon medical books, see Hall, Elves in Anglo-Saxon England, chaps 4 and 5. 24 

M  ultilingualism

127

but rather contains essentially the same things than would have been available to a university-trained physician, except in vernacular translation, whereas the universities functioned in Latin. In the Voigts-Sloane Group, Add. 19674 may include the occasional magical charm, but the majority of the remedies were descended from the same Greek tradition as the scholastic medicine practised at universities derived from the so-called Roman encyclopaedic tradition.30 Moreover, remedy books may include surgical content such as the recipe for callosity, attributed to the royal surgeon William Stalworth in Add. 19674 (see Chapter 3 above). Because of this theoretical unity and overlap between the traditions, the tripartite system was challenged by Francisco Alonso Almeida and Ruth Carroll, who propose an alternative classification into theory-only books, theory-practice books, and practice-only books.31 The first group contains ‘texts dealing with anatomy, phlebotomy, surgery, etc.’ and the third group ‘recipe texts and prescriptions’, resembling the first and third categories in the system proposed by Voigts and used by MEMT, with the exception that Alonso Almeida and Carroll object to the term ‘remedy book’, emphasizing the shared GrecoRoman tradition of its contents. This alternative classification is worth noting here, since the second, theory-practice books, encompasses ‘those texts which, in the current classification, are given in an intermediate position between learned texts and popular remedy books’, and this is precisely where the Sibling Set Texts fit.32

Languages in the Sibling Group The Sloane Sibling sequence of texts contains c. 12,000–12,500 words per text, of which c. 9700 are Latin and fewer than c. 2500 words Middle English. In other words, Middle English represents slightly more than 20 per cent, one fifth, of the word count.33 30 

Getz, Medicine in the Middle Ages, p. 45; Jacquart, ‘Medical Scholasticism’, p. 200. Alonso Almeida and Carroll, ‘A New Proposal’. 32  Alonso Almeida and Carroll, ‘A New Proposal’, p. 31. 33  I used the Sloane Sibling sequence in Trinity O.1.77 as the basis for the count. The word count for my transcription is 9735 Latin words and 2518 Middle English, that is, the percentage of Middle English is 20.5 per cent of the Sibling Sequence in the manu­script. Counting the exact numbers of words is complicated by the extremely high number of abbreviations, fluid word divisions (for example ‘shall be’ is sometimes written together as ‘shalbe’, sometimes separately as ‘shal be’), and a large number of scribal errors and interlinear corrections. However, as the 31 

Chapter 5

128

Figure 25. The Latin and Middle English Sibling Set Texts.

Different languages are normally found in individual texts. Texts in Latin include Manipulus medicine de digestivis et laxativis, the final one of the three uroscopy treatises Expositiones colorum urinarum in ordine, Aqua mirabilis et preciosa, De regimine sanitatis, De mirabilibus aquae ardentis rectificate, and the first and last of the three treatises on the plague. They are followed by the astrological section, which contains two Latin texts that are shared by four of the Sibling manu­scripts (excluding the two Second Generation manu­scripts), De signis sumptis per lunam in quo signo zodiaci sit, and the astrological tables, which vary from manu­script to manu­script. The texts that contain English are two treatises in the uroscopical section, Practica urinarum and the Twenty-Jordan Series, an English translation of the plague treatise attributed to John of Burgundy, and a shorter text, the Seven Planets. All of the English texts appear next to Latin texts with the same subject matter, whereas a number of Latin texts have no corresponding English one. These texts in Latin alone include laxative and purgative remedies, the regimen text attributed to Aristotle, and the two short texts for manufacturing waters. Sibling Group manu­scripts contain the same texts, the proportion can be considered as roughly representative of the whole Sibling Group.

M  ultilingualism

129

The Voigts-Sloane Group has previously been cited in literature as an example of the relative equality of Latin and English. In 2011, I wrote: There does not appear to be a clear-cut division between learned, prestigious Latin texts and more popular English ones. The English texts do not gloss the Latin ones, or otherwise facilitate understanding them, and their contents appear to be on the same level with the Latin treatises.34

However, a functional distinction does exist: technical information, including astrological tables needed for making diagnoses and the instructions, are given in Latin. Moreover, recipes with exact measurements are found only in Latin texts. Example 1 illustrates a Latin recipe in the plague treatise attributed to John of Burgundy, the English translation of the same recipe can be seen in Example 5 below. Both list the same ingredients. However, only the Latin recipe contains an imperative, presented by the abbreviation Recipe, and apothecaries’ weights which specify how much of each ingredient is needed.35 Example 1 ℞ ypericon diptanum turmentillam pimpernellam scabiose philadelphiam ana ȝ j bolem armoniace terram sigillate ana ȝ ß. fiat puluis. (Trinity O.1.77, fol. 66r) (Take St. John’s Wort,36 dittany, pimpernel, tormentil, scabious of each a drachm, Armenian Bole and sealed earth of each half a drachm. You shall have powder.)

This functional division means that the view expressed by Voigts and myself, that the English and Latin texts in these manu­scripts are of equal sophistication, has to be slightly revised.37 Only the Latin texts contain exact measurements in their recipes. This in combination with the fact that the Middle English texts always occur next to Latin texts on the same subject mean that the English cannot be considered completely on the same level. Rather, it would seem that the reader of the manu­script was expected to have enough functional Latin to be able to understand recipes in Latin or to make astrological calcula34 

Honkapohja, ‘Multilingualism’, p. 33. Cappelli, Lexicon abbreviaturarum, p. 318. 36  Ypericon may refer to St John’s Wort (Hypericum perforatum), known for its healing properties. 37  Voigts, ‘What’s the Word?’; Honkapohja, ‘Multilingualism’. 35 

Chapter 5

130

tions based on them. The English texts would provide a simplified summaries of the Latin treatises. The situation, however, is more complicated with uroscopical treatises. The two English ones are longer than the Latin one, containing the theoretical part, and the Twenty-Jordan Series, where information for making diagnosis is given in Middle English and the names of the urines in the scholarly Latin/Greek terms. The monolingual Latin text, Expositiones colorum urinarum in ordine, in contrast, is a rather short treatise, which merely recounts the information given by the English part.

Text-organizing Passages Both the Latin and English texts are introduced by text-organizing passages, which are almost exclusively in Latin. They are indicated by ways which vary from manu­script to manu­script. Plate 3 (p. 40). shows the explicit of the Middle English translation of the plague treatise attributed to John of Burgundy. Example 2 And thorugh the grace of god he shall from this sekenesse be kepid & delyued. Explicit tractatus Iohannis de Barba vel de Burdegalia editus contra morbum pestilencialem & est morbus epidemialis. Anno domini millesimo CCCo nonagesimo Et […] (And through the grace of God he shall be spared and saved of this sickness. Here ends the treatise by John of Barba or Bordeaux composed against the pestilential sickness, and it is an epidemic sickness. In the year of our Lord 1390.)

Ebesham uses brown ink for the running text and red ink for the explicit, a usage that dominates in late medieval manu­scripts to mark change of language.38 Other scribes use different means to indicate the switch between Latin and English in the same passage. For example, in Trinity O.1.77 the incipits and explicits are written in black and underlined in red. The same treatise, the English version of John of Burgundy, also contains the only example of English used to organize text, a bilingual text-organizing passage in which a Middle English text-internal incipit is embedded in a Latin incipit. Example 3 illustrates this passage in Booklet A of Sloane 2320. 38 

Machan, ‘The Visual Pragmatics of Code-Switching’, p. 311.

M  ultilingualism

131

Example 3 Et iam incipit tractatus Iohannis de Barba alias dictus Iohannes de Burdegalia extractus in Lingua anglicana contra morbum pestilencialem. Anno domini millesimo CCCo nonagesimo Et  […] HEre . begynneth a noble tretis maad of a good physician Iohn of Burdeux for medicine agenst the pestilence evil (Sloane 2320, fol. 16r) (Now begins the treatise of John of Barba, also known as John of Bordeaux excerpted in the English language against the pestilential or epidemic sickness. Here begins a noble treatise made by the good physician John of Bordeaux for medications against the pestilence.)

The metatextual manu­script-level incipit is in Latin, but the text itself contains another incipit, here begynneth […], which contains the same information in Middle English. Both the incipit and beginning of the text are nearly identical in all manu­scripts, which means that the switch of language was present in the exemplar and is a matter of authorial language, or a decision of the person who assembled the compilation, rather than scribal language. In addition to text-organizing passages, Latin is used for text-internal headings. Figure 26 and example 4, which is taken from the Twenty-Jordan Series in Sloane 3566, illustrate this.

Figure 26. Switches with a text-organizing function and related to special terminology in London, British Library, MS Sloane 3566, fols 28v–29r. © The British Library Board.

132

Chapter 5

Example 4 Circulus/ yf ther benn in þe cercle smale bollys at were of reyne water it be tokenyth in þe hede rysynge out of þe stomacke (Sloane 3566, fol. 29r) (Circle: if the circle contains small bubbles as if it was rain water, it betokens wind in the head rising from the stomach.)

The names of urines — rubea, subrubea, rubicunda, subrubicunda, and rufa — are given in Latin, and the urines are described in English (see Figure 26). Latin is also used as a heading for the passage in the top right corner, which describes the ‘circle’, the highest of the three layers of urine (MED). This offers an interesting example of the same lexical item used both as a switch and as a loan. The Latin word circulus (in bold typeface) is an instance of the language used in a text-organizing function. The English word cercle (underlined) is the same lexical item, borrowed and integrated into the linguistic system of English. The word circul is attested already in the Old English period. It is one of a number of lexical items which were borrowed directly rather than loan translated.39 In Old English, it had an astrological meaning, referring to the circle of the Zodiac.40

Switching Language with Terminology Ingredients that were imported to England from abroad are often in the original language, displaying various levels of integration into the target language. Example 5 shows two instances of medical terms, bole armonyac and terra sigillata, which were not fully integrated into English but were part of the standardized medical terminology at the time. Example 5 Also it is good to vse a powder that is good ageyn all venym that is maade of these herbes or som of them . that may beste be goten . ditane . pimpernelle: tormentil . scabious . bole armonyac . and terra sigillata the .ij. last named spiceres haue to selle (Sloane 2320, fol. 17v) 39 

Kastovsky, ‘Semantics and Vocabulary’, p. 300. ‘“Þone miclan circul zodiacum”, c. 1000 Sax. Leechd. III. 244’, OED, s.v. circle. The uroscopical meaning is attested in the late fourteenth century and can thus be considered established by this time (MED, s.v. cercle). 40 

M  ultilingualism

133

(It is also good to use a powder that is good against all venom. It is made of these herbs, or some of them, which may best be obtained: dittany, pimpernel, tormentil, scabious, Armenian bole, and sealed earth. Apothecaries have the last two for sale.)

Both refer to special kinds of earth that were in medicinal use in the period, and evidently available from pharmacies. ‘Bole Armonyac; refers to Armenian Bole, ‘a soft friable fatty earth, usually of a pale red colour’ (OED). The word is well attested in Middle English. MED gives quotations, for example, in Canterbury Tales, John Trevisa’s translation of the Compendium by Bartholomeus Anglicus (1398), and surgical works such the Middle English translation of Lanfranc’s surgery. Terra sigillata, which is inflected as a Latin class 1 feminine adjective in agreement with the noun, refers to ‘an astringent bole, of fatty consistence and reddish colour, obtained from Lemnos; formerly esteemed as a medicine and antidote’ (OED). Both switches refer to a clearly defined medical term, as these ingredients were traded from Armenia or the Mediterranean to the British Isles, and they went under the same name.41 Much of the medical vocabulary was international, coming ultimately from Greek or Arabic, and was borrowed into English via Latin or Romance languages.42 In the Sloane Siblings, these words are mostly used in their anglicized form, terra sigillata being an exception. Examples 1 and 5 contain a Middle English and Latin version of the recipe found in John of Burgundy’s plague treatise. The names of the ingredients in Middle English are ditane, pimpernelle, tormentil, scabious, bole armonyac, and terra sigillata. The Latin version lists diptanum, pimpernella, turmentilla, scabiose, philadelphia, bole armoniac, and terra sigillata. This translation strategy is typical of specialized treatises, whereas surgeries and remedy books rely more on loan translations.43 Within descriptions of language switching, it is commonplace to make a distinction between intersentential, intrasentential, and extrasentential switching.44 Intersentential switches occur at the boundary of sentences or independent clauses; extrasentential switches consist of items such as ‘vocatives, interjections or discourse markers, whose position in an utterance does not depend on the structural rules of a language’; and intrasentential switches: of ‘switches 41 

OED, s.v. ammoniac; MED, s.v. armoniak. Meecham-Jones, ‘“Gadryng Togedre”’, p. 253. 43  Pahta, ‘Code-Switching in Medi­eval Medical Writing’, p. 82. 44  See Romaine, Bilingualism; Schendl, ‘Linguistic Aspects of Code-Switching’, pp. 87–88, Thomason, Language Contact, p. 132. I use the definitions given by Pahta and Nurmi,‘“What We Do Con Amore”’, p. 410. 42 

Chapter 5

134

Figure 27. A flagged switch in London, British Library, MS Sloane 3566, fol. 79r. © The British Library Board.

within a sentence or an independent clause, including switches that occur at a boundary between a dependent clause and its base clause’.45 Despite having a reputation for being extremely multilingual, switching languages in the middle of a sentence is rare in the Sibling Group. The only real instance that is part of the Sibling Set Text is illustrated by Example 6. It is taken from the Middle English Practica urinarum, which includes the Latin phrase in statu, which contains an ablative ending. The passage explains the different stages of a sickness and how to identify them based on the patient’s urine. A possible reason for this switch is that the translator was unable to find a satisfactory translation for the Latin phrase or was unsure of its exact meaning. Example 6 Than it behoueth principally to wyten by [fol. 26v] consideracion of the vryne and by askyng also what the malady is. Wheither it be a feuer or an other maledy. & wheither it be in the begynnynge or in the endynge or ellys in statu […] (Sloane 3566, fol. 26r–v) (Then it is necessary above all to ascertain what the disease is by examining the urine and asking the patient whether it is a fever or another disease and whether it is in the beginning or ending or in the state.)

Texts in which Latin is the base language do not contain switches into vernacular Middle English or French. The only switch is to Arabic and is found in the Latin version of the plague treatise by John of Burgundy, which con45 

Pahta and Nurmi, ‘What We Do Con Amore?’, p. 410.

M  ultilingualism

135

Figure 28. A flagged switch in Boston, Collectanea medica, Boston Medical Library, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, MS Ballard 19, fol. 39v. Reproduced with permission of Boston Medical Library in the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine.

tains instructions for manufacturing a powder known as pulvis imperialis or, in Arabic, Bethazaer. This miraculous medicament is advertised as especially potent, protecting against poisons and the epidemic sickness, but is unfortunately largely unknown to physicians and apothecaries. However, according to Matheson, ‘in at least one Latin MS (Erfurt, Bibliotheka Amploniana Q.172), John notes that he knows of a certain apothecary in Liège who specializes in it’.46 The passage is treated differently in the different manu­scripts. In Sloane 2320 and Sloane 3566, the Arabic ingredient name is underlined, whereas in the other three it is not given special attention. Figures 27 and 28 illustrate the differences in treatment of these passages in Sloane 3566 and Boston 19. Example 7 Et dicitur in lingua arabica Bethazaer .id est. liberans a morte & sic fit (Sloane 3566, fol. 49r) (and it is called in Arabic Bethazaer, that is, freeing from death and that is what it is.)

The switch is related to the special language of medicine, and more specifically to specialized terminology. Pahta notes that (in medical texts, where the base language is English), flagged switches such as this ‘occur primarily in treatises that stem from the learned tradition’.47 Since Arabic, as opposed to the vernacular languages, is given special treatment, it obviously also had a prestige function. The switch is of the type that Tony Hunt calls a ‘marked gloss’ which has been integrated into the text. Its function is to provide a synonym for the lexi46  47 

Matheson, ‘Medecin sans frontieres’, p. 18. Pahta, ‘Code-Switching in Medi­eval Medical Writing’, p. 82.

136

Chapter 5

cal item in another language, ‘“mentioned” by the author in a metalinguistic comment’.48 This instance is marked by two devices by an explicit mention that it is from a foreign language, as well as by the abbreviation .i., which stands for ‘id est’.49 The abbreviation .i. is hardly used at all in the Sibling Group, and never in the Middle English texts. This is in dramatic contrast to multiple incidences in other texts: for instance, Peter Murray Jones reports 350–400 occurrences in the surgical treatises by John Arderne, and there are many in the examples of Anglo-Norman recipes quoted by Hunt.50 The likely reason for this is that the intended audience for surgeries was different than for the Sibling Group. Whoever used these manu­scripts had to have good skills in Latin, since the vernacular translations also presuppose an ability to read and understand Latin terminology.

Abbreviations as Language Independent Elements Example 8 illustrates a marked gloss of a medical term, the name of a vein — which survives in Modern English — giving instructions for opening it and letting the infected blood out. It is in the Middle English version of the plague treatise attributed to John of Burgundy. Example 8 The hede veyne lyeth aboue þe body veyne scilicet. cardiac. (Trinity O.1.77, fol. 80v) The hede veyne lieth aboue the bodye veyne scilicet. Cardiak. (Boston 19, fol. 48v) The hede vayne lyeth a bove þe body vayne þat is to sey . þe cardiake. (Sloane 3566, fol. 97v) (The head vein lies above the body vein, namely, cardiac.)

48 

Hunt, ‘Code-Switching in Medical Texts’, p. 134; Pahta, ‘Code-Switching in Medi­eval Medical Writing’, p. 83. 49  On flagging see Pahta, ‘Code-Switching in Medi­e val Medical Writing’, p. 82; Norri, ‘Entrances and Exits in English Medical Vocabulary’, p. 107. On .i., see Jones, ‘Four Middle English Translations’, p. 69; Voigts, ‘The Character of the Carecter’, p. 102; Cappelli, Lexicon abbreviaturarum, p. 168. 50  Hunt, ‘Code-Switching in Medical Texts’, p.  137; Jones, ‘Four Middle English Translations’, p. 69.

M  ultilingualism

137

Five scribes used the Latin abbreviation s. for scilicet, while the scribe of Sloane 3566 expanded it as ‘that is to say’.51 This may indicate that the scribe of Sloane 3566 saw the abbreviation in his exemplar and read it, either silently or aloud, as ‘that is’. Another possibility is that he was accommodating the text to his audience, using English instead of the abbreviation and suspension system. Example 9 demonstrates another type of abbreviation. It comes from the beginning of Trinity O.1.77, which contains a short treatise copied by Hand B on flyleaves 1r–v, giving instructions on how to read apothecaries’ weights — pound, ounce, drachm, scruple, and handful — as well as two ways for abbreviating ‘half ’, with an ß which stands for Latin semis, ‘half ’, and dj, a suspension for demi, deriving via French from the Latin dimidium, ‘divided’ or ‘half ’ (OED).52 Example 9 þo wiȝtes is straunge & harde to knowe y wole titil hem here /a povnde53 is þus writen £j.j. halfe a povnde þus .£j. ß. Oþer þus .£j.dj./A quartron þus quarter .j. An vnce54 þus .℥.j. halfe an vnce þus ℥ß. or þus ℥dj /A drame þus. Ʒj./halfe a drame .Ʒ ß. or þus. Ʒ dj. /A scripule þus. ℈ j. half a scripule þus .℈ ß. or þus ℈ dj./ (Trinity O.1.77, flyleaf 1r) (since weights are strange and hard to know, I will write them down here. A pound is written like this £j.j. Half a pound like this .£j. ß, or this .£j.dj. A quarter like this quarter j. An ounce like this .℥.j. Half an ounce like this ℥ß. or like this ℥dj A drachm like this Ʒj. Halfe a drachm .Ʒß. or like this Ʒdj. A scruple like this ℈j. half a scruple like this .℈ ß. or like this ℈dj.)

Using abbreviations for measurements has the obvious advantage of saving space, time, and ink, making it possible to write recipes very concisely, but they are also of interest from the point of view of multilingualism, as they are a good 51  Cappelli, Lexicon abbreviaturarum, p. 336; Pahta, ‘Code-Switching in Medi­eval Medi­ cal Writing’, p. 82 contains another example of the same formula. 52  See also Honkapohja, ‘Multilingualism’, pp. 34–37. 53  Pound is represented by the letters li with a horizontal strikethrough line. The origin of this is in the Latin word libra. The sign later developed into the symbol still used for pound sterling, £; Voigts, ‘The Character of the Carecter’, p. 99. 54  The symbol for ounce is resembles the modern small z with long vertical descender. The origin of this is in the letters oz written with a single stroke. In the manu­script the symbol is written by two strokes. It comes from Latin uncia: ‘twelfth part, twelfth, ounce, inch’; Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary, ii.

Chapter 5

138

example of the kind of language-independent elements found in scientific and medical texts that can potentially be read in Middle English as well as Latin. However, in practice, their use is bifunctional in only one text located on the flyleaves of the Trinity manu­script. In the Sibling anthology they occur only in Latin recipes: an indication of the clear functional differences Latin and Middle English have in these manu­scripts. The above-mentioned passage in the Trinity manu­script is illustrated by example 10. The passage is in mixed language and contains two switches to the vernacular. Both are in the phrase cocliaria plene de, ‘spoonful of ’, and the switched items are names of ingredients. Interestingly, the phrase ‘take halfe di spoonful or spoonful at ones’ occurs in English a few lines below (underlined). Example 10 Ad rectificandum epar & ad illud conseruandum ab adustacione & inflacione

℞ . £i .j. de sugerloof .iiij. cocliaria plene de saudres & iiij cocliare plene de

shawyng of yuery. & bete þe yuery to smale pouder [flyleaf, 2v] in a morter & putte somme of þe suger withal. & after for elles it wolle not be beten. & after þat . put al in a vessel & menge it togeederis & bete it to pouder til it be sotel. & take halfe di sponeful. or a sponeful at ones þerof by day tyme or nyȝt tyme as þe semeþ need. (Trinity O.1.77, flyleaves 2r–2v) (For restoring the liver and preserving it from burning and swelling. Take one pound of loaf of sugar, four spoonfuls of sandalwood, and four spoonfuls of shaving of ivory. Beat the ivory to small powder in a mortar and add some of the sugar afterwards, because otherwise it will not be beaten. After that, put everything in a vessel and mix it together and beat it to powder until it is fine grained. Take half a spoonful or a spoonful at once of it by day or night as seems necessary to you.)

This type of intrasentential switching seems to represent an instance where ‘the writer’s thought moves forward […] in a way that switches back and forth between Latin and English in the middle of sentences’.55 This is also an indication that the person who wrote down the recipe on the flyleaf had a high linguistic competence, and it is a clue to the multilingual medical practice where he seems to have operated. It is plausible that recipes as a text type are particularly prone to language mixing, since they are characterized by simplex syntax and ‘short, paratactic

55 

Wenzel, Macaronic Sermons, p. 22.

M  ultilingualism

139

Figure 29. French, Middle English, and Latin in the Core Group.

impera­tive clauses’.56 Moreover, recipes are also characterized by the frequent use of abbreviations, which save space but could also be interpreted as serving to obscure inflexions, in order to render the recipes legible in Latin, Middle English, and Anglo-Norman.57

Languages in the Core Group In summary, despite the combination of Latin and Middle English treatises and the reputation for multilingualism, the Sibling Group contains only a handful of instances where both of the languages would be used in the same text, the only frequent use being Latin text-organizing passages as incipits and explicits. The situation is more complicated in the Core Group. Figure 29 illustrates the distribution of different languages across the Core Group. 56 

Carroll, ‘The Middle English Recipe as a Text-Type’, p. 36. This would be reminiscent of the use Wright has observed in business writing; see, e.g., Wright, ‘On Variation in Medi­eval Mixed-Language Business Writing’. 57 

Chapter 5

140

Figure 30. A Middle English heading for a Middle English recipe in London, British Library, MS Sloane 1118, fol. 27v. © The British Library Board.

The two longest manu­scripts are Sloane 1118 and Add. 19674. In terms of language use, they are very different. Sloane 1118 is almost entirely in Latin, but some English can be found in Booklets A, B, C, and J. Add. 19674 is almost exclusively in Middle English. Certain booklets in two manu­scripts stand out by containing several examples of switching from Middle English to Latin intrasententially. These are Booklets A, B, C, and J in Sloane 1118 and Booklet B in Sloane 2948. Both of these manu­scripts, Sloane 1118 and 2948, are alchemical. Two manu­scripts, Sloane 2567 and Add.19674, however, rely more on Middle English and contain considerably fewer switches than Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2948. French is found in one recipe in Booklet B of Sloane 1118 (fol. 29r) and in the second text of Sloane 1313. Sloane 1313 contains only Latin and French. Unlike the Sibling Group, the Core Group manu­scripts do not have a uniform metatextual level of text-organizing passages. When incipits and explicits are found, they are in Latin. Recipes typically have a heading in the language in which they are written. Figure 30 and Example 11 illustrate an English metal-

M  ultilingualism

141

Figure 31. Recipe headings in Middle English and Latin in London, British Library, MS Add.19674, fol. 33r. © The British Library Board.

lurgical recipe for making a broken sword whole in the middle of a Latin text;58 by contrast, Figure 31 shows a Latin recipe for hair dyeing in the predominantly Middle English manu­script Add. 19674. Example 11 For to make a Broken Swerd hool: Take salt petre . and vitriol / and distille them to water . and that water is called euframes then take tyn and reche it. (Sloane 1118, fol. 27v) (For to make a Broken Sword whole: take salpeter and vitriol and distill them to water. And that water is called Euframes. Then take tin and enrich it.)

In both cases, the language of the heading agrees with the language of the recipe: A medicine for to drawe out a tooth withouten jren or steele: Take the mylke […] and Ad capillos denigrandos: recipe gallas pouderof […]. In both, the 58 

Hughes, Arthurian Myths and Alchemy, interprets this as a possible metaphor for curing Henry VI of his insanity.

142

Chapter 5

heading is written in the Bastard Secretary display hand, which is one of the defining features of the Core Group. The choice of language indicates the language of the recipe. The reader of the collection could browse the headings, and the language of the heading indicates the language of the remedy or recipe that would follow. An exception to this is the Latin charm for toothache in Add. 19674 (Figure 32).

Text Organizing and Alchemy The Core Group manu­scripts differ clearly from those of the Sibling Group in containing more multilingualism. In particular, the two alchemical manu­ scripts, Sloane 1118 and 2948, contain Latin adverbials such as scilicet (namely), ergo (therefore), and item (likewise) used as part of the English text. Latin adverbs are illustrated in Examples 12–14. Example 12 And hit purgeth the stomake fro all coleris benethe .scilicet. by the Emoroydes. (Sloane 2948, fol. 56r) (And it purges the stomach from all choler underneath, namely, by the hemorrhoidal veins in the anus.)

Example 13 jerapigra draweth corrupt humours fro the hed þe nek and the brest and from the knees the leggys and the fete the sengulere kynde of sterres is capricorne. et aquarius . et piscis and soo it may be said of many other . Ergo . yf thou wilte cure the hed any syke man with quinte essence and gold. (Sloane 1118, fol. 100v) (Hiera Picra draws corrupt humours from the head, neck, and breast, and from the knees, legs, and feet. The specific kind of stars [applying to Hiera Picra] are Capricorn and Aquarius and Pisces. and so it may be said of many other [stars]. Therefore, if you want to cure the head of any sick man with quintessence and gold.)

Example 14 Item thou mayst take aqua vite of the best aqua vite and putte it in alonge rotumbe with a grete bottom and a long nekke. (Sloane 1118, fol. 102r) (Likewise, you may take aqua vitae of the best aqua vitae and put it in a long container with a large bottom and long neck.)

M  ultilingualism

143

Figure 32. A Latin charm for toothache in London, British Library, MS Add.19674, fol. 11r. © The British Library Board.

The switches in all three are indeclinable adverbs and, in terms of switch location, are extrasentential. Each of them could be omitted without making the sentences unreadable. When the adverbial is abbreviated — as in Example 12, which shows the abbreviation s for ‘scilicet’, used in a similar way to Example 8 above — it is language independent and may have been expanded by the reader in English as well as Latin. It is also worth noting that this practice is followed independently of the abbreviation and suspension system, since in Examples 13 and 14 the adverbs are written in full.

Chapter 5

144

The two manu­scripts that contain the greatest number of switches from Latin to Middle English, Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2948, frequently use the Latin adverb item (likewise) to introduce recipes that have the same purpose as the one preceding them (Example 14). Add. 19674, written predominantly in Middle English, however, has the same item translated with the English phrase ‘an other for the same’, which occurs in the same context at the beginning of a recipe or a remedy intended to achieve the same outcome as the previous one (Example 15). Example 15 An other for the same. Take of þe rose shred smal and jlike moche […]. (Another for the same. Take of the rose [discussed in preceding recipe] and the same amount […].’)

Whether abbreviated or not, these adverb types can be formulaic or at least ‘typical of the written medium’.59 There are, however, also several examples of longer Latin phrases used in connection to alchemy in the two alchemical codices Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2948. Example 16 shows a passage from Sloane 1118 that contains one such example, the phrase ‘Eius Sublimacio est isto modo’ (its sublimation is in this manner) in the middle of an alchemical process described in Middle English. Example 16 alwey styre it wele for brennyng and on this manere it muste be doon .ij. or iij | Eius Sublimacio est isto modo ℞ sulfur the vise soo dight £j.j tyn glers of ceruse £j j. of comon salt geme £j j. make poudre of alle thees and put them togeder to sublymyng .ij. or .iij. (Sloane 1118, fol. 34v) (always stir it well for burning, and in this manner it must be done twice or thrice | Its sublimation is [done] in this manner. Take sulphur in the way that was described [and] one pound of white lead, one pound of rock salt. Make a powder of all of these and put them together, subliming two or three.)

The phrase serves to introduce the part of the recipe which gives instructions for making the alchemical substance. The verb ‘to sublime’ (underlined) is used in English immediately afterwards, so the reason for switching cannot be lack of special terminology in English. The Latin is thus used in what can be seen 59 

Pahta, ‘Code-Switching in Medi­eval Medical Writing’, p. 81.

M  ultilingualism

145

as a text-organizing function. However, it is also possible that this switch had a parallel in alchemical practice. Latin abbreviations are employed in Middle English as well as Latin. Two such abbreviations are .s. for scilicet, and .i. for id est, which is used to introduce synonyms. The main usage of .i. is to give a Middle English inline gloss for the foreign term, but it can also be used to give a Middle English synonym for a Middle English word. This is illustrated by Example 17. Example 17 and after that anoynte thy face with the grees of a lappewynk .id est. a wype . the same houre of the day; thou shalt see deueles & spirites the space of 4. houres of the day. (Sloane 2948, fol. 53v) (and after that anoint your face with the grease of a Lapwing, that is, a wipe. at the same hour of the day. You shall see devils and spirits for the period of four hours of the day.)

According to the OED, the lapwing (n.) is a ‘well-known bird of the plover family, Vanellus vulgaris or cristatus, common in the temperate parts of the Old World’. According to the MED, a wipe (n.) is ‘the lapwing (Vanellus vanellus)’. Thus the Latin abbreviation is used to give two Middle English synonyms for the same bird.60

Switching Language with Terminology Core Group manu­scripts contain several examples of Latin, Romance, or even Greek and Arabic terminology with varying degrees of integration into the base language. Example 13 contains the word jerapigra meaning ‘[a] purgative drug composed of aloes and canella bark, sometimes mixed with honey and other ingredients’ (OED). The word comes from Medi­eval Latin Hiera Picra. The OED gives examples between 1379 and 1896. The Anglo-Norman dictionary records the forms ierapigre, yerapigra, and yerapigre, defined as a ‘type of bitter purgative medicine (containing aloes)’, making this an example of a lexical item that was essentially the same in Middle English and Latin.61 Example 14 contains a different case, the Latin word aqua vitae, ‘a term of the alchemists applied to ardent spirits or unrectified alcohol’ (OED), which 60  61 

OED, s.v. lapwing; MED, s.v. wipe. OED, s.v. hiera picra.

Chapter 5

146

retains its Latin genitive ending. The earliest use of it given by the OED is in 1471 as a part of an alchemical text, George Ripley’s Compound of Alchymy, and the earliest date given by the MED is 1425 in a translation of the Guy de Chauliac.62 The word may be familiar to modern audiences as the name of an alcoholic drink, but in the fifteenth century it was a technical term related to medicine and especially alchemy. In a number of cases, a specialized medical or alchemical term is introduced by flagging. The standard abbreviation .i., id est (see Example 18) is more frequent than in the Sibling Group, but it is not used as consistently as in the surgical treatises mentioned by Jones.63 Example 18 for it is verrey Quintte essence . the whiche is called aqua ardent .id est. brennyng water  | but as j saide before noo philosophres noor leches now adays that couthe come þerto but of aqua ardente euery man may fynde ouer all. (Sloane 1118, fol. 101r) (because it is truthfully quintessence, which is called aqua ardens, that is, burning water. But as I said before neither philosophers nor leeches these day know how to make quintessence, but any man may find aqua ardens in several places.)

An alternative phrase for flagging can be found towards the end of the predominantly Middle English manu­script Add. 19674. In one of the few Latin treatises, synonyms in English and French are flagged with the phrase que dicitur. These synonyms are illustrated in Examples 19 and 20 below. Example 19 et tamen de quedam herba que dicitur cherrevel in Anglice (Add. 19674, fol. 58r) (and also of the herb that is called chervel in English)

Example 20 herbe que dicitur anglice walewort, gallice dicitur eblo (Add. 19674, fol. 58v) (herb that is in English called walwort and in French eblo)

62  63 

OED, s.v. aqua-vitae; MED, s.v aqua. See Jones, ‘Four Middle English Translations’, p. 69.

M  ultilingualism

147

Figure 33. Underlined special terminology in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948, fol. 53r.

Figure 34. Underlined special terminology in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948, fol. 54r. © The British Library Board.

In Sloane 2948, some technical terms are underlined, which may indicate flagging them as foreign or technical. These are illustrated by Figures 33 and 34. The list in Figure 33 reads: ‘cure alle these sykenesses disinaticos, asmaticos, pthysicos, empthisicos, anelosos; and the list in Figure 34 ‘the same houre it heleth paupissimum the gomorriam and the sathyriasim’. Some of these are instances of ‘Latin terms and expressions’ which ‘do not show any integration into English in their written manifestation and are not known to be widespread in the language’.64 However, some of them are recognized by the MED or the AND, including asma, ‘difficulty of breathing, asthma’ (MED), and asmatici (AND), as well as empic ‘Suffering from suppurative inflammation in the chest’ (MED), and empic, empique, empicus, ‘person suffering from emphysema’ (AND).These items thus represent more instances of shared lexis between Medi­eval Latin, Anglo-Norman and Middle English.65 64  65 

Pahta, ‘Code-Switching in Medi­eval Medical Writing’, p. 83. MED, s.v. asma, empic; AND, s.v. asma, asmatici, empic, empique, empicus.

148

Chapter 5

As is the case with the Sibling Group, the vast majority of switching in the Core Group occurs as switches to Latin in texts where the base language is English. However, the predominantly Middle English manu­script Add. 19674 contains a switch from Latin to Middle English. The scribe writes pouderof in Middle English after the headword ‘oak apples’ (see Example 21). Example 21 Ad Capillos Denigrandos. Recipe gallas pouderof et non perforatas. (For darkening hair. Take a powder of oak-apples without holes […].)

This is a very interesting case and difficult to interpret, as it stands out as an individual instance rather than an example of a systematic usage. It would be tempting to think the person who wrote down the recipe could not come up with a suitable word in Latin. The reference to oak apples without holes means that the oak apple has not been drained to make ink, since this was one manner of manufacturing ink. The examples given above are single words, which in their various degrees of integration are related to special terminology. Alchemical texts also contain switches consisting of phrases and clauses, related to the practice of alchemy and its special vocabulary. Example 22 is found at the end of an alchemical recipe, and gives a metaphorical description of a chemical process, a typical feature of alchemical terminology.66 Example 22 ℞ the red erthe of saturne and bete it vndre þe planet of Iubiter into subtil pouder þen put hym to þe ward of venus til he be maried to mercurye and þis is luna with sol by mars made on in body vt duo que fuerant quasi vnum corpus fiant. (Sloane 1118, fol. 28v) (Take the red earth of Saturn and beat it under the planet of Iupiter into finegrained powder. Then put it to the ward of Venus until he is married to Mercury and this is of the moon made with Sol by Mars made one in body so that two that had been two, will become one in flesh.)

The switch occurs in a text where English is the base language, before a Latin utfinale clause, which explains the effect of the alchemical procedure. It is possible that this is a reference to the Bible, either Mark 10. 8 or Matthew 19. 6, which 66 

See, e.g., Pereira, ‘Alchemy and the Use of Vernacular Languages’, p. 337; Walsh and Wallace, ‘The Liberty of Invention’, p. 58.

M  ultilingualism

149

Figure 35. The Latin co-ordinating conjunction et in a Middle English recipe in London, British Library, MS Sloane 2948, fol. 56r. © The British Library Board.

in the Vulgata read ‘et erunt duo in carne una. Itaque jam non sunt duo, sed una caro’ (‘and the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh’; Mark 10. 8) and ‘Itaque jam non sunt duo, sed una caro’ (‘so that they are no longer two, but one flesh’; Matthew 19. 6). The switch may thus allude to the Bible in its metaphoric description of the marriage between two substances.

Ambiguity and Alchemy Alchemical recipes include a phenomenon where the scribes switch to Latin in the middle of a recipe. Examples 23 and 24, as well as Figure 35, illustrate this practice in Sloane 1118 and 2948, in which the scribe writes a Latin et (and) instead of English or uses the abbreviation. Example 23 ℞ pouder of flynt and put þerto lyes of red wyn and the Iuys of these herbes .id est. Rapiumflex & philopendula et origanum and stille awater hereof . (Sloane 1118, fol. 35v) (Take a powder of flint and put in there lee of red wine and the juice of these herbs, that is, Rapiumflex and Filipendula and Origanum, and distill them into a water.)

Example 24 putte þerto hote cowe mylke of oon ble. do hoot as hit cometh fro the brest .£j 3. et hony .£j.j and of white wyne wel sauoured .£j. 2 and sette it 7. dayes in the sonne and kepe it wel. (Sloane 2948, fol. 55r) (put therein hot cow milk of one milking blow. Put into it three pounds, as it comes hot from the udder, one pound of honey and of two pounds of well-savoured white wine and set it in the sun for seven days and keep it well.)

Chapter 5

150

As the text type of recipes largely consists of simple paratactic clauses,67 which may or may not be punctuated by ‘and’, the scribes had three alternatives at their disposal. They could have written the English and, the Latin et, or used the ampersand &. It is possible that they were more accustomed to copying recipes in Latin and ‘lapsed’ into Latin unwittingly when copying a Middle English text. The Latin et often occurs in a context of containing apothecaries’ weights, numerals, or switched Latin terminology, which supports this view. Another way to analyse this is to say that et, the ampersand, and the English word and are interchangeable, and the Latin word was used because it was slightly shorter. This explanation, however, is unlikely, as the ampersand was an even shorter alternative. The Core Group also contains a number of switches which eluded my classification efforts into switches that organize text or discourse or can unambiguously be identified as representing special terminology. A common factor is that they too come from the domain of alchemy. Example 25 contains the Latin phrase in fimo equino (in horse dung), in instructions for the manufacture of a pure form of alcohol known as the fifth element. Example 25 after put it in a vyol of glas wel stopped and thenne sette thi viole in fimo equino . and let them be þerinne 17 dayes or more and remuwe thy donge soo seuenyght to seuenyght (Sloane 1118, fol. 34v) (afterwards put it in glass vial well shut and then set the vial in horse dung and let them be there for seventeen days or more and remove the dung week to week.)

The switch can perhaps be explained as special terminology, or as taboo usage, the use of Latin lends an air of technicality for the use of dung in the preparation of the alcohol-based universal cure: quintessence.68 Example 26 is another intrasentential switch which is difficult to classify. It is not an instance of special terminology, since both the verb ‘cook’ and the Latin intensive pronoun ipsum (itself ) or ‘the very substance’ would be easy to translate. Example 26 After the stillyng coque ipsum over a softe fyre til the wetenesse be consumed thorugh sethyng after that salt gadre soo ysoden and drye hym wele with hete of the sonne and not with fyre. (Sloane 1118, fol. 34v) 67  68 

Carroll, ‘The Middle English Recipe as a Text-Type’, p. 31. Pahta, ‘Code-Switching in Medi­eval Medical Writing’, pp. 86–87.

M  ultilingualism

151

(After the distillation cook itself over a gentle fire until the moisture is consumed through boiling. After that gather the salt thus boiled and dry it well with the heat of the sun not with fire.)

The Latin pronoun is actually abbreviated ipm̄, with a horizontal bar above it. This suggests another instance of a scribe or translator who was more familiar with the Latin terminology or accustomed to use the abbreviation and suspension system, and used the fairly compact Latin expression instead of writing a potentially longer English paraphrase. Example 27 contains the Latin adverb paulatim (gradually, little by little): Example 27 & sett them in the fyre til it be red hote as a cole paulatim Soo late hym stande an houre or more then putte him on a test et bonum estt [sic]. (Sloane 1118, fol. 35v) (and set them in the fire until it is red hot as a coal little by little. So let it stand for an hour or more, then put it in a test and it is good.)

It differs from the examples of text-organizing adverbs by being an adverb of manner and giving information on the alchemical process described in the recipe rather than simply organizing the discourse. It is integrated ‘in the flow of discourse so that it forms integral part of communication and cannot be left out’.69 The same recipe ends with the Latin phrase et bonum estt, an efficacy formula that here provides an end rhyme with test.

Conclusions Despite the Group’s reputation for containing Latin and English texts that are of equal sophistication, analysis of the Group reveals a clear-cut division between Latin and Middle English languages, in which technical material is given in Latin while the Middle English treatises seem to function as some kind of additional aids for people whose Latin was not up to the task. In one treatise, the Twenty-Jordan Series, the theoretical information is in English, but this treatise is the only one that can be said to include systematic code-switching: the names of urines are given in Latin (or Greek/Arabic) and the symptoms related to them in Middle English.

69 

Pahta, ‘Code-Switching in Medi­eval Medical Writing’, p. 83

152

Chapter 5

Multilingualism in the group consists mainly of monolingual Latin and nearly monolingual Middle English treatises next to one another. The only function in which the scribes switch between Latin and English inside a text are manu­script level incipits and explicits, which are in Latin also for the Middle English texts. Although the texts make use of Latinate terminology, it is frequently not glossed, which is a feature of the more learned traditions of writing within the domain of medicine. While switching to another language is rare in the Middle English texts, it simply does not happen in Latin ones. A single switch can be found in the long Latin version of the John of Burgundy plague treatise: it contains a name of a medicine which is given in Arabic and flagged clearly as written in a different language. The likely reason is that Arabic has a prestige status, whereas English or French do not. Even though the Sloane Group is often considered to be learned, the texts lack one of the indications of intertextuality, which Pahta considers to be a typical feature of learned treatises or materia medica.70 A possible explanation is that the Sibling Group is fairly practically oriented and is aimed at giving a set of rules on how to prevent and treat certain sicknesses, but with a limited theoretical discussion. This brings them into the theory-practice book category of Alonso Almeida and Carroll.71 The Core Group manu­scripts contain a greater number of switches than the Siblings, including examples of intersentential, extrasentential, and intrasentential switches. There are considerable differences between the manu­scripts, revealing that the compiler(s) of these manu­scripts did not have a systematic editorial policy for multilingualism but seem to have reproduced the switches in their exemplar. The codices also display a full range of different ways to employ special terminology related to medical or alchemical discourse. The words can retain their Latin grammatical endings and be partially or fully integrated. There are also a number of different methods for flagging lexical items as foreign, but none of these is particularly frequent or systematic. The majority of switching can be pinpointed to a single domain, alchemy, and to a single text type, recipe. The long alchemical manu­script Sloane 1118, and the partly medical, partly alchemical Sloane 2948, contains the greatest number of switches.72 The fact that many of the examples come from alchemi70 

Pahta, ‘Code-Switching in Medi­eval Medical Writing’, pp. 81, 84–86. Alonso Almeida and Carroll, ‘A New Proposal’. 72  These two also share the codicological similarity that quires have been signed with symbols, which is an unusual practice. 71 

M  ultilingualism

153

cal treatises may result from conventions not being as well developed for the domain of alchemy, in which vernacular treatises only started to appear in the fifteenth century, as for the domain of medicine. Proper mixed-language, or macaronic material, is mainly limited to a single text type: recipes.

Chapter 6

Dialect and Dialectology

T

he final part of this study is concerned with another type of linguistic description, a dialectological analysis of the language of the VoigtsSloane Group. The aim is first, to find out how the data relates to the incipient standard(s) and London language of the day; second, to find out whether the dialect of any of the manu­scripts contains local colouring; and finally, to discover how close the Core Group and the Sibling Group are to each other dialectally, and whether any individual manu­script stands out. My methodology consists of using the Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English (LALME) and a slightly modified application of the ‘fit’ technique. The late date and expected southern provenance mean that the dialect of the Sloane Group may not necessarily be studied by a classic fit technique. The reason is that LALME covers the years 1350–1450, and ‘southern texts become less valuable as evidence for strictly geographical variation from about 1425’.1 However, the scholarship related to the so-called Chancery Standard, which informed the compilers of LALME at the time of the original release in 1986, has later been re-evaluated and criticized,2 and a number of studies have demonstrated that it is possible to localize scribal profiles after 1450, even if the dialectal features may be partially muted, representing the ‘colourless’ late Middle English.3 1 

Milroy, ‘Middle English Dialectology’, p. 185. See Wright, ‘The Contact Origins of Standard English’; Wright, ‘Introduction’; Hope, ‘Rats, Bats, Sparrows and Dogs’; Benskin, ‘Chancery Standard’. 3  Samuels, ‘Spelling and Dialect’; Davis, ‘The Language of Two Brothers’; Benskin, ‘Some New Perspectives’; and Matheson, ‘The Dialect of the Hammond Scribe’. 2 

156

Chapter 6

A Linguistic Atlas of Late Medi­eval English When it came out in 1986, LALME was the most comprehensive survey of Middle English dialect: a dialect atlas of late Middle English which ‘covers England and those parts of Wales for which source-material is available’.4 It differed from earlier projects by its greater coverage, including documents which the scribe had ‘translated’ to his own dialect, and taking into account graphetic variation instead of treating written language merely as a source of clues for reconstructing the phonemes and morphemes of spoken language.5 The main principles of LALME can be summarized as follows: 1. ‘ Written language should be examined in its own right, not just as an imperfect reflection of the “primary” spoken language’. It ‘should have equal status with spoken language as source material for linguistic study, since both are manifestations of an underlying abstract system.’ 2. ‘Regional dialects do not have strict geographical boundaries. Their variant forms are part of an extended series of overlapping distributions: a “continuum.”’ 3. Unlocalized scribal texts can be localized by comparing their features to localized texts using the ‘fit’ technique. 4. ‘Not all “copied” Middle English texts display linguistic mixture — some scribes “translate” or convert the language of their exemplar into their own kind of language […]. Previously it had been widely assumed that all copied texts  […] must be dialectal mixtures. In fact, many scribes translated the language of their exemplars into their own dialects’; ‘A scribe may do one of three things when copying a text in a dialect not his own: (a) he may copy it exactly; (b) he may convert the language of his exemplar into his own dialect; (c) he may do something in between.’6 The LALME method is based on the so-called ‘anchor’ texts that can be localized on non-linguistic grounds, such as personal correspondence, administra4  McIntosh and others, A  Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English. An expanded electronic version was made available in 2013. The core evidence for southern England falls between the years 1325–1425 and for northern England 1350–1450. 5  Earlier projects include: Ekwall, ‘Ortsnamenforschung ein Hilfsmittel für das engl. Sprachgeschichte-Studium’; Oakden, Alliterative Poetry in Middle English, i; and Moore, Meech, and Whitehall, Middle English Dialect Characteristics. 6  The list is quoted from Laing, ‘Early Middle English’, pp. 98–100.

Dialect and Dialectology

157

tive records of manors and municipalities, and secular and ecclesiastical court records.7 Data was collected from these using a questionnaire of as many as 424 items, which was used to construct a linguistic profile (LP) for each scribe, that is, a collection of forms which characterize his (or her) language variant.8 Texts with uncertain provenance can then be localized in relation to the anchor texts by applying the fit technique.9 As more and more features are taken into account, the plotting of their geographical positions becomes more refined, and the text can, in many cases, be localized to a single county. When a sufficient number of texts have been localized with certainty, the entire corpus can be placed more accurately.10 At the time of writing this book, the eLALME corpus consists of 9704 LPs. The LALME method does not assume clear-cut isoglosses between the dialectal features. Rather, the different forms are collected in dot maps, which show the distribution of the forms in the different repositories that have been included in the survey. When an unlocalized text is fitted, its lexical items and linguistic features are compared to the dot maps. Areas where these items are not found are progressively eliminated until the text can be pinpointed to a certain geographic region. Traditionally, the fitting is accomplished by using the maps provided in Volume iii of the atlas. The eLALME provides a digital function for the attempt.

The Emergence of Standard English The difficulty with applying the LALME method to the Voigts-Sloane Group is that the manu­scripts date from after 1450, which is the end point of LALME. At this point, English was gaining ground from Latin and especially French in many official registers that had previously been the domain of these two more prestigious languages.11 This led to muting and eventual disappearance of regional variation in written English. 7 

LALME, 2.3.2; Laing, ‘Early Middle English’, p. 99. No LP actually contains all 424 items. The editors (LALME, 2.1.1) emphasize that about a hundred forms are sufficient for compiling an LP. As in modern dialectology, the features that characterize a certain area differ from area to area (2.1.4). 9  See LALME, 2.3.4 for the basic account. A useful practical introduction can be found in Benskin, ‘The “Fit”-Technique Explained’. 10  Milroy, ‘Middle English Dialectology’, p. 186. 11  Ingham, The Transmission of Anglo-Norman and Chapter 5 of the present study. 8 

158

Chapter 6

At the close of the fourteenth century, the written language was local or regional dialect as a matter of course; typically, the area in which a man acquired his written language can be deduced from the form of the language itself […]. By the beginning of the sixteenth century, in contrast, local forms of written English had all but disappeared.12

The development of a national written standard was a complex process, and its exact details are subject to differing scholarly opinions.13 It is often thought of as a change from above, influenced by a variety of factors, including the development of grammar schools, the replacement of French by English as the teaching language because of high mortality rate among the clergy during the plague epidemics, nationalism caused by the Hundred Years’ War, and the adoption of English by administrative offices such as Henry V’s Signet Office and the Chancery. The administrative offices were located in Westminster, which also became a factor when William Caxton set up his printing press as he was also based there. The variant that became the basis of the newly emerging written standard was spoken in the East Midlands, in the Oxford, Cambridge, and London triangle, possibly because it was the dialect spoken by the greatest number of people. London was also the administrative centre, an important hub for trade networks with a population many times higher than that of other big cities such as York or Coventry.14 For example, in the 1470s London’s population was 70,000 as opposed to 10,000–12,000 in the other major cities. London was always by far the largest English city, and the degree of its primacy within the political, linguistic and territorial unit of which it was part was unique in Europe, notably by comparison with France and Germany.15

Four Types of London English The dialect of London had a complex history, which cannot fully be explained by diachronic developments alone, and it seems to have been influenced by immigration from different parts of England. The changes were abrupt and 12 

Benskin, ‘Some New Perspectives’, p. 71. See, e.g., Fisher, The Emergence of Standard English; Wright, ‘Introduction’; Milroy and Milroy Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation; Milroy and Milroy, Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English; Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, ‘Standardisation’. 14  Keene, ‘Metropolitan Values’ p. 102. 15  Keene, ‘Metropolitan Values’, p. 97. 13 

Dialect and Dialectology

159

must have resulted from ‘rapid changes in the regional balance of London’s immigrant population’.16 A classic account was given by Michael Samuels in an influential article originally published in 1963, in which he distinguishes four types of London English. His account became the standard textbook history of English by the late 1970s.17 Samuels distinguishes four types of written standard. Two are forms of London English, one the variety used in administrative documents from Westminster, and the other a literary standard based on the dialects of the Central Midlands and in use over a larger geographical area, including London. Type I, the ‘Central Midland Standard’, was the earliest and most widely used. To quote from the original article, ‘[t]he most noticeable feature of this group is the sheer quantity of surviving manu­scripts that belong to it’.18 This is the variety that appears in Wycliffite tracts and a number of literary texts in the late fourteenth century. The variety is difficult to localize, but it is based on the dialects of ‘the Central Midland counties, especially Northamptonshire, Huntingdonshire and Bedfordshire’.19 However, ‘it becomes apparent that this is a standard literary language’ whose use is not restricted to the counties that provided the model for it.20 Moreover, Type I ‘was a well-defined model that admitted relatively little internal variation’.21 A possible reason for using an amalgam of Central Midland counties is given by John Trevisa in his translation of Higden’s Polychronicon.22 Trevisa says that people living in the middle of England understand northern and southern dialects better than northerners and southerners understand each other, which may be understood as a reference to using Central Midland Standard in translations aimed for a wide audience.23 men of myddel Engelond […] vnderstondeþ betre þe syde longages, norþeron and souþeron, þan northeron and souþeron vnderstondeþ eyþer oþer. 16 

Benskin, ‘Some New Perspectives’, p. 77. Samuels, ‘Some Applications’. For an overview of textbooks until 1996, see Wright, ‘About the Evolution of Standard English’. 18  Samuels, ‘Some Applications’, p. 67. 19  Samuels, ‘Some Applications’, p. 67. 20  Samuels, ‘Some Applications’, p. 67. 21  Benskin, ‘Some New Perspectives’, p. 84. 22  John Trevisa’s Translation, ed. by Waldron. 23  Samuels, ‘Some Applications’, p. 67; Waldron, ‘Dialect Aspects’, p. 68; Taavitsainen, ‘Scien­tific Language and Spelling Standardisation’, p. 135. 17 

160

Chapter 6

The Central Midland Standard survived unchanged in written form to the fifteenth century: ‘[t]he Welshman Pecock [c. 1390–1460] (or his scribes) wrote it in almost exactly the same form as writers fifty to sixty years earlier.’24 Type II, in contrast, appears to be a London-based variety that did not have as wide a currency as Type I. It is predominantly based on the dialect of Essex (East Saxon) and is found in a group of fourteenth-century manu­scripts, most importantly the Auchinleck manu­script (Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, MS 19.2.1), written in about 1330.25 According to the original article by Samuels, ‘there is no specific evidence of localisation for this group and it has been disputed hitherto: each manu­script has been assigned various provenances from Nottinghamshire to London. But on linguistic grounds there seems no doubt that they must all be from the greater London area’.26 Benskin considers Type II representative of London English until c. 1360, when it ‘was then displaced, and abruptly so as it seemed, by the familiar Chaucerian type, “Type III”’.27 Type III, which is the variant of Middle English most familiar to many modern readers, is particularly associated with the Ellesmere and Hengwrt manu­ scripts of Chaucer, copied by the London-based scrivener Adam Pinkhurst, and the poetry of Hoccleve, who also worked as the clerk of the Privy Seal. Type III was also used in a number of fourteenth-century official documents such as London Guild records or the Petition of the Mercers, from the city rather than Westminster.28 Horobin notes that all fifteenth-century examples are from literary texts, mainly Chaucer and Hoccleve, an admirer and imitator of Chaucer. However, other ‘prestigious London poets, such as John Gower’ did not use it.29 Samuels mentions ‘a heterogeneity of orthography that contrasts strikingly with the comparatively uniform spelling system of Type I’.30

24 

Samuels, ‘Some Applications’, p. 68. Benskin, ‘Some New Perspectives’, p. 77. For an introductory account, see Blake, A History of the English Language, p. 170. 26  Samuels, ‘Some Applications’, p. 70. 27  Benskin, ‘Some New Perspectives’, p. 77. 28  See Samuels, ‘Some Applications’, p. 70; Horobin, The Language of the Chaucer Tradi­ tion, p. 21; Chambers and Daunt, A Book of London English; and The Fifty Earliest English Wills, ed. by Furnivall. 29  Horobin, The Language of the Chaucer Tradition, p. 21. 30  Samuels, ‘Some Applications’, p. 71. 25 

Dialect and Dialectology

161

Table 13. The illustrative forms of London English Types I–IV. Feature

Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

THESE

—

—

thise

thes(e)

THEY

—

þai, hij

they

—

THEIR

—

—

hir(e)

theyre, þeir(e), þair(e), her

SUCH

sich

—

swich(e)

such(e)

ANY

ony

—

—

—

mych

—

—

—

SHOULD (sg)

—

schuld

sholde

shulde

WILL (sg)

—

wil

wol(e), will(e)

—

THOUGH

—

þei(ȝ)

though

—

AGAINST

—

oȝain(s), aȝen

ageyns, ayeyens

—

WHILE

—

þerwhile(s) þat

whil

—

NOT

—

nouȝt, no

nat

not

WORLD

—

werld, warld

world

—

THROUGH

—

—

thurgh

thorough, þorow(e)

BUT

—

—

bot

but

GAVE (1/3 sg)

—

—

yaf

gaf

ȝouun

—

—

—

NEITHER […] NOR

—

noiþer, noþer

neither

—

OLD

—

eld(e)

old(e)

—

THE-SAME

—

þat ilch(e), ich(e)

thilke, that ilke(e)

—

SAW (1/3 sg, 2 sg, pl)

siȝ

—

—

—

SELF

silf

—

—

—

stide

—

—

—

MUCH

GIVEN

STEAD

162

Chapter 6

Finally, Type IV is the variant known as the ‘Chancery Standard’. According to Samuels, it ‘consists of that flood of government documents that starts in the years following 1430’ and differs considerably from the Chaucerian Type III: ‘and it is this type, not its predecessors in London English, that is the basis of modern written English’, a claim that has been challenged by some scholars and is discussed in more detail in the following section.31 The forms given in Table 13, which are those that best illustrate each type, are taken from the article by Samuels. According to Benskin, they are meant as illustrative only, and there is some overlap between each of the types.32

Chancery Standard and Its Criticism A theory which informed the compilers of LALME is that Type IV Chancery Standard spread to the rest of the country after 1430 through administrative documents, when they began to be written in English instead of the earlier Latin and French. As the editors put it: In the course of the fifteenth century, […] regional diversity gives way increasingly to Chancery standard, the official language of the London administrators and the direct ancestor of modern Standard English.33

This view, which has become standard in handbooks on the history of English, is argued for by Malcolm Richardson and especially John Fisher.34 Their claim is that standard English originated in the language of administrative clerks working for the office known as the Chancery, which was responsible for nearly all of the royal paperwork. The Chancery clerks had formerly followed the king to different parts of the realm, but, during the Hundred Years’ War, when Edward III was absent for long periods, the Chancery was located in Westminster.35 In the early fifteenth century, two Lancastrian monarchs, Henry IV and especially Henry V, promoted the use of English as an intentional policy, because of renewed hostilities with France and because they needed support from the commons.36 31 

Samuels, ‘Some Applications’, p. 71. Benskin, ‘Chancery Standard’, p. 2. 33  LALME, 1.1.2. 34  Richardson, ‘Henry V, the English Chancery, and Chancery English’; Fisher, ‘Chancery and the Emergence of Standard Written English’; Fisher, ‘Chancery Standard and Modern Written English’; Fisher, ‘A Language Policy for Lancastrian England’; Fisher, The Emergence of Standard English; Fisher, Richardson, and Fisher, An Anthology of Chancery English. 35  Fisher, ‘Chancery and the Emergence of Standard Written English’, p. 874. 36  Fisher, ‘A Language Policy’, p. 1170; Fisher, The Emergence of Standard English, p. 7. 32 

Dialect and Dialectology

163

One problem with this view, which Fisher acknowledges, is that no English documents stipulating Chancery English as the official standard survive. The situation contrasts with that in Castile, where Alphonso X, ‘decreed that the usage of the Chancellery of Toledo should be the standard for all official documents’ in 1253, or France, where Louis IX of France ‘indicated that official correspondence was to be written in the French of the Chancellerie Royale in Paris’ in 1257.37 Despite becoming the majority view and being accepted by most textbooks, this view has attracted considerable criticism, which has gained force in recent publications. Already in the 1980s, it was noted that texts after the mid-fifteenth century are by no means free of regional variation. In his 1983 studies of documents connected to the Paston letters, Norman Davis noted that the forms used by John Paston (II) and John Paston (III) show considerable variance, as do a dozen letters written to the Pastons by Thomas Playter, a Norfolk lawyer ‘described in 1448 as “of the Chancery”’, John Clopton, and Lord Moleyns, which all contain regional forms in the midfifteenth century instead of the expected ‘characteristically Chancery pattern’. Davis concluded that ‘even at this date well on in the fifteenth century a generally observed written standard was still far from attained in the fairly reputable society represented by these brothers’.38 Samuels himself noted in an article published in 1981 that localizing documents from the mid- to late fifteenth century ‘bristles with problems’.39 He mentions that the language of such well-known figures as William Caxton (d. 1492) or Cardinal Wolsey (1473–1530) still show a mixture of forms localizable to their native counties. Derek Britton finds Yorkshire forms, localizable with the help of LALME, in the language in the diary of Henry Machyn (covering the years 1550–63).40 Since the 1990s, a number of linguists have levelled heavy criticism at the Richardson-Fisher theory for the origin of standard English.41 Michael 37 

Fisher, The Emergence of Standard English, pp. 1, 71–75. Davis, ‘The Language of Two Brothers’, p. 28. 39  Samuels, ‘Spelling and Dialect’, p. 93. 40  Britton, ‘Henry Machyn, Axel Wijk, and the Case of the Wrong Riding’, p. 571. 41  Fisher’s view is questioned and criticized by Wright, ‘The Contact Origins of Standard English’, ‘About the Evolution of Standard English’, and ‘The Contact Origins of Standard English’; Hope, ‘Bats, Rats, Sparrows’; and Benskin, ‘Some New Perspectives’ and ‘Chancery Standard’. 38 

164

Chapter 6

Benskin, one of the members of the LALME team, has been especially critical of Fisher, expressing concern in 1992 and criticizing almost every aspect of Fisher’s scholarship in 2004. According to him, calling the variant ‘Chancery Standard’ ‘is a considerable misnomer. […t]he Chancery was a major department of government, but by no means the whole of it’.42 Many of the documents Fisher labelled as ‘Chancery’ originate with other administrative offices, such as the Exchequer, the Signet, and Privy Seal Offices.43 Benskin criticizes Fisher for sloppy diplomatics and editing, which ‘is uninformed not only philologically but historically’.44 He identifies problems with dating the documents, as well as misinterpretations of documentary categories.45 For instance, Fisher assigns a letter ‘to the reign of Henry V’ on palaeographical grounds, whereas ‘[t]he file containing this “exemplar” […] is late, consisting […] of documents from 1482–1483’.46 Moreover, the document in question is a Privy Seal warrant, not a Chancery document. He is also critical of identifying the year 1430 as a watershed, after which English became the primary language of administration: As to the date when English came to be used regularly as a language of government, we should look to 1417 rather than 1430. Until August 1417, the language of royal missives under the Signet had been French, but with Henry V’s second invasion of France, it changed suddenly and decisively to English.47

But he stresses that ‘[w]here Latin had been the norm, it remained so’,48 and English began to be used ‘at the expense mostly of French, and a main source is the huge increase of business in domains where the vernacular was already established’. His conclusion is that Fisher’s work is not merely inaccurate scholarship: it reports an ideology rather than its texts […] concealing and playing down such differences as might be expected between the 42 

Benskin, ‘Some New Perspectives’, p. 79. Benskin, ‘Some New Perspectives’, p. 79. 44  Benskin, ‘Chancery Standard’, p. 5. 45  Benskin, ‘Chancery Standard’, pp. 10–11, 14–15. 46  According to Benskin, ‘Chancery Standard’, p. 15, Fisher, Richardson, and Fisher, An Anthology of Chancery English, reject an earlier dating of the documents to 1482 by Hall and the reign of Edward IV, and present the document as evidence of usage half a century earlier. Hall, A Formula Book of English Official Historical Documents, i: Diplomatic Documents. 47  Benskin, ‘Some New Perspectives’, p. 80. 48  Benskin, ‘Chancery Standard’, p. 4. 43 

Dialect and Dialectology

165

usages of any dozen or so London residents of the time, whether from diverse institutions or none. Had Henry V’s Signet clerks really been concerned with institutional spelling norms, then the word ENGLAND would surely have been a prime candidate for fixity, whereas their letters show at least seven variants: Eng(e)lond, England(e), Engeland, Ingelond, Ingeland.49

However, Benskin does accept the broad view that a standardization process began in 1400 and was complete by 1500.50 He also accepts the importance of Henry V in promoting the use of English, and that the official documents were the vehicle which carried standard spellings into the provinces. These views are called into question by Jonathan Hope and Laura Wright. Hope is critical of what he calls the single-ancestor hypothesis, arguing that linguists have looked for a single parent because the family tree metaphor demands it, overlooking the essentially hybrid nature of standard English.51 Laura Wright points out that conditions for the development of standard English existed in sources other than government offices, such as multilingual business documents, which were likely to contain a considerable amount of vernacular at an earlier date than many other text types.52 In these kinds of trilingual texts, English items are found embedded in Latin or Anglo-Norman matrix language, and it is often difficult to determine to which language a certain lexical item belongs.53 The switch to monolingual English took place only in the last quarter of the fifteenth century, and the elimination of minor forms, which Wright sees as the central process of standardization, occurred only at the beginning of the sixteenth century.54 When it does take over, the protostandard English is not the Chancery Standard.55 Wright also calls attention to a surprisingly weak foundation for an account which has become very influential. In an article from 1996, she notes that what has become the standard account of the development of a written standard for English in texts is based on Eilert Ekwall’s Studies on the Population of Medi­eval London, published in 1956, in which Ekwall looked at surnames in London in tax rolls from 1270 to 1350 and hypothesized on this basis that change in the 49 

Benskin, ‘Chancery Standard’, p. 21. Benskin, ‘Some New Perspectives’, p. 71. 51  Hope, ‘Rats, Bats, Sparrows and Dogs’, p. 49. 52  Wright, ‘On the Writing of the History of Standard English’, pp. 107–09. 53  Wright, ‘The Contact Origins of Standard English’, p. 59. 54  Wright, ‘The Contact Origins of Standard English’, pp. 59, 62. 55  Wright, ‘The Contact Origins of Standard English’, p. 64. 50 

166

Chapter 6

London language from the South to the East Midlands was because of prestigious immigrants from the East Midlands.56 The account was intended as tentative rather than comprehensive or conclusive. Nevertheless, it informed Samuels when writing his seminal account of London English seven years later in 1963, which was also not intended as comprehensive.57

Medical Texts and Written Standards One more thing which Wright calls attention to is the limited selection of data on which the account of the development of Standard English is based. Samuels failed to look at enough non-literary data, and Fisher failed to look at ‘the whole London material’, confining himself to letters produced in English by the Courts of the Chancery.58 The story has largely been written based on administrative and literary texts, also taking into account private correspondence and religious treatises, such as the Wycliffite translations. Scientific and medical texts, which survive in considerable numbers, have only been dealt with in passing or as part of the repertoire of an individual scribe, but they are assumed not to have played an important role in standardization.59 In one of the few studies of dialect in medical works that have been carried out, Irma Taavitsainen analyzes the spread of three Central Midland Dialect forms sich, mich, and ony in the Middle English Medical Texts corpus.60 The result was that they frequently appear in texts written outside the Central Midlands, which suggests an immigrant from this area or someone looking to the Central Midland Standard as a model. She also supplemented her selection with a handful of forms taken from three LPs (4708, 432, and 676),61 which 56  Wright, ‘About the Evolution of Standard English’, pp. 99–102: there are a number of weaknesses in this account, many of which are acknowledged by Ekwall himself. As Wright states (pp. 104–06), not all surnames are based on place names. Several places might share the same name, Kirkby being a good example. In these cases Ekwall counted the place closest to London. Furthermore, names were inherited not only by children from parents, but also by apprentices from masters. Ekwall actually found more immigration from the Home Counties than from the East Midlands but hypothesized that the immigrants from the East Midlands must have been of higher status, since their language proved to be influential. 57  Benskin, ‘Chancery Standard’, p. 2. 58  Wright, ‘On the Writing of the History of Standard English’, p. 111. 59  Taavitsainen, ‘Scientific Language and Spelling Standardisation’, p. 135 60  Taavitsainen, ‘Scientific Language and Spelling Standardisation’. 61  These are ech(e), aftir, ȝit, ȝitt, þoruþ, þorouȝ, aftirward, eyr(e), eir(e) (air), bitwix, brenn,

Dialect and Dialectology

167

are from scientific texts from Bedfordshire and Leicestershire (models for the Central Midland Standard). Her discovery was that these forms are more widely disseminated in medical works than noticed in earlier literature and are ‘prominent in surgeries, anatomy texts and some of the special treatises’, even though the vast majority of these texts date from the fifteenth century, when Central Midland Standard should no longer have been influential.62 She also makes the interesting point that perhaps Lollards, in their attempt to reach as wide an audience as possible, looked for models in utilitarian writing like medicine rather than the other way around. Medical texts were numerous and circulated openly, whereas Wycliffite texts were condemned as heretical and had to be circulated in secret.63 Angus McIntosh himself touched on the language of scientific texts in a single paper, although his concern was with what he called the p–paradigm of present indicative plural endings.64 His main argument was that a region in the northern Midlands, consisting of north-east Leicestershire, Rutland, northern Northamptonshire, the extreme north of Huntingdonshire, as well as parts of northern Ely and north-west Norfolk, developed endings for the present indicative plural, which used Midland endings in syntactic context that was modelled after northern usage. This means the ending for first-, second-, and thirdperson plurals was the southern -eth, unless preceded by a personal pronoun subject that was in direct contact with the verb. With these kinds of subjects, the ending was normally -en. The relevance of this to medical writing is that this paradigm is attested in some fifty manu­scripts, most of which are surgical, including Middle English translations of Chauliac and Arderne. McIntosh proposes that they were copied by a scriptorium in the area of Rutland: Indeed, wherever in the area the various scribes of these texts originated, they share so large a number of characteristics as to suggest that their work emanated from a single scriptorium. If so, the output of that scriptorium would seem, on the evidence at present available, to have been mainly of copies of surgical works.65

One cannot, of course, help noticing that the idea of a large scriptorium specializing in surgical texts is incompatible with the view that has emerged in bisy, iȝe, yȝe (eye), fier, heed, lyue, moun pl. (may), puple, peple, renn; Taavitsainen, ‘Scientific Language and Spelling Standardisation’, p. 137. 62  Taavitsainen, ‘Scientific Language and Spelling Standardisation’, p. 143 63  Taavitsainen, ‘Scientific Language and Spelling Standardisation’, p. 145 64  McIntosh, ‘Present Indicative Plural Forms’, p. 235. 65  McIntosh, ‘Present Indicative Plural Forms’, p. 243.

168

Chapter 6

recent codicological scholarship on the circumstances of the commercial book trade in the fifteenth century (see Chapter 1 above). The uniformity would have to be related either to origin in another type of book production or some kind of linguistic variation. The language of surgeries with the characteristic p-paradigm was subjected to a further analysis by Taavitsainen.66 She calls the dialectal variant found in these manu­scripts the Chauliac/Rosarium type. Taavitsainen is understandably sceptical about the existence of the scriptorium specializing in surgical treatises in Rutland, and she considers incipient standardization and scriptorial ‘house styles’ in the medical register as a more likely cause for the uniformity. She also looks at two Sloane Sibling manu­scripts as a point of comparison to London, noting that the ‘language type is not the same’ as in the Chauliac manu­scripts analyzed.67 The dialect of the Hammond scribe, responsible for copying the long medical codex Cambridge, Trinity College, R.14.52, composed between 1458–68, was analyzed by Matheson, who used LALME and compiled a complete LP. The study is of interest, because the domain is the same, as is the date of composition.68 Matheson discovered features that belong to all four types of London English, concluding that ‘[s]uch a pattern of correspondences points clearly to a scribe working in later fifteenth-century London, copying for a local readership’.69 The Hammond scribe also treats different texts in the manu­script differently, leading to some degree of Mischsprache, using ‘a form from his passive repertoire to replace or approximate a form in his exemplar’ or copying ‘a form not his own from the exemplars’. 70 Nevertheless, Matheson was able to find a number of items with regional distribution to suggest that the scribe 66 

Taavitsainen, ‘Scriptorial “House-Styles”’. For the Chauliac/Rosarium language she selected a number of forms taken from McIntosh, ‘Present Indicative Plural Forms’, as well as an edition of the Rosarium by von Nolcken, The Middle English Translation of ‘Rosarium theologie’. There are the orthographic variants cch in mycch, ycch; -ez in ‘-ness’, whilez, and -ez in noun plurals; war (were); -þof (though); bot (but); hundreþ; sex (six), sexte; luffe (love); absence of k in ‘which’, ‘each’, ‘much’; -ij- spellings; cherche; absence of h in it; absence of qu-; unstressed wiche, war, wen, wy; þam, þame, þaime, hem; possessive þar(e), þer, sporadic þair, her; as well as þise (þese) (p. 222). The LPs she used are 6380, 6390, 6400, 6420, 6430, 6500 (p. 213) as points of comparison to Types I, II, and III London English. Taavitsainen, ‘Scriptorial “House-Styles”’. 68  Matheson, ‘The Dialect of the Hammond Scribe’. 69  Matheson, ‘The Dialect of the Hammond Scribe’, p. 82. 70  Matheson, ‘The Dialect of the Hammond Scribe’, p. 78. 67 

Dialect and Dialectology

169

‘originally came from west Essex, possibly northwest Essex or even extreme southwest Suffolk, areas that are not inconsistent with his core set of major forms’.71

Methodology The relevance of the above discussion for this study is that, despite the view given in the introduction to LALME, it is possible to find variation in documents localized in London or its surrounding areas after 1430. Indeed, texts from such sources as letters written by lawyers working for the Chancery in the 1450s, books printed by William Caxton in Westminster after 1475, and documents written at the turn of the century by Cardinal Wolsey, a person at the top of the administrative chain, are not yet written in Type IV Chancery Standard. However, because the Voigts-Sloane Group dates from the period when the standardization process was well under way, it is necessary to separate London forms from variants which may have local colouring. According to Benskin, documents from the fifteenth century can be broken into three groups: ones which represent ‘the local language as it was before London English started to spread’; ‘the partly-standardised usage typical of the middle and later fifteenth century’; and ‘the muted remnants of local usage characteristic at the century’s close’.72 The hypothesis is that the language of the Sloane Group would represent the second stage. In order to find out to what extent the Sloane Group represents standardized language and contains dialectal features, I analyzed the data separately for standard and dialectal forms. Because of the criticism towards Type IV Chancery Standard and because the standards used in medical texts have been incompletely described, I  take all Samuels’s Types I–IV into account. The assumption here is that all these forms represent London usage and that any of them may have been ‘other forms in widespread use’ that the scribes of the Sibling Group or the Core Group may have applied.73 71 

Matheson, ‘The Dialect of the Hammond Scribe’, p. 82. See Benskin, ‘Some New Perspectives’, pp. 75–76. According to Samuels, the ‘colourless’ regional standard refers to two processes. The writer (i) replaced his local, dialectally peripheral, forms by those of the Chancery Standard, or (ii) by ‘other forms in very widespread use’. Samuels, ‘Spelling and Dialect’, p. 86. 73  The approach is based on LALME, which despite its limitations is the most comprehensive resource for late Middle English. Matheson uses all of Samuels’s Types as evidence of London language in his examination of the dialect of the Hammond scribe. Britton, 72 

170

Chapter 6

The approach was slightly different for the Sibling Group and the Core Group. –– To determine the spread of London or standard English forms in the Voigts-Sloane Group, I compared the forms to a checklist based on Samuels, which gives eight forms for each Type of London English which can best be used to characterize it (see Table 13 above). This part of the analysis was the same for the Sibling and the Core Group. –– The second part of the analysis for the Sibling Group was to use the fit technique on forms which are frequent enough to be considered dominant. By dominant form, I refer to ‘those which are well-attested in both the LP and on the maps’. In LALME, a dominant form is one which occurs in 66 per cent of instances or more.74 Due to the small size of the corpus, I selected forms which occur three times or more in the c. 2200–2500 words that constitute the Sibling Sequence in each manu­script.75 –– The third part of the analysis for the Sibling Group was to use the fit technique on minor forms of potential interest. I selected forms which can be identified as unique to each scribe based on the parallel corpus.76 The process was somewhat different for the Core Group. I initially intended to use the division into booklets as the basis for the analysis. However, it quickly became apparent that, despite the complicated collation and several different hands, all of the Middle English sections are written in a very similar dialect. The focus then shifted to describing the variety found in them. –– The first stage is similar to the Sibling Group. I compared the forms found in the Core Group to a checklist of canonical forms of London English as they are given by Samuels. –– The second phase was different. A number of spellings in the Core Group are strikingly close to modern English. I compared these to modern English. –– The third stage was to identify orthographic variants which the core manu­ scripts share with each other and which differ from the London English of ‘Henry Machyn, Axel Wijk, and the Case of the Wrong Riding’, pp. 573–74, accepts LALME as the most reliable basis for analysis, especially when supplemented from other sources. 74  Benskin, ‘The “Fit”-Technique Explained’, p. 17. 75  I accepted the form yit (yet) for Boston 19 as a major form, even though it is attested only twice, i.e., 100 per cent. The reasons are that it is the sole variant used by Ebesham, and that it differs from the other forms (see Table 17 below). 76  These could be used to detect local colouring in scribal dialect in similar way to Matheson, ‘The Dialect of the Hammond Scribe’, and Benskin, ‘Some New Perspectives’.

Dialect and Dialectology

171

Types I–IV. I applied the fit technique to these, drawing isoglosses to see whether they can be narrowed down to a single geographical area. In the analysis, I also compared the results to the forms given by Matheson, McIntosh, Taavitsainen, and Waldron.77 The analysis was carried out using the Antconc corpus software.78 I created word lists of XML transcriptions and compiled linguistic profiles by using the full LALME questionnaire. Like Taavitsainen and Matheson, I give the absolute frequencies, instead of the traditional LALME notation. The LALME notation is that a dominant form, one which occurs in 66 per cent of the instances of more, is given as it is. If a form occurs in 33 to 66 per cent of instances, it is given in single parentheses. If it occurs in less than 33 per cent, it is given in double brackets.79

Data The data used in this study consists of the Middle English texts in both the Sibling and the Core manu­scripts. The word count for the Sibling Group is 14,331 and for the Core Group 17,879. The manu­scripts are presented in Tables 14 and 15. The size of the corpus used is not very large, but this can at least partly be compensated for in the Sloane Siblings by the fact that the texts which are available are textually nearly identical in all of the manu­scripts, providing a parallel corpus in which it is possible to trace the distribution of the forms in each of the manu­scripts. Using parallel versions of the same text is considered ideal by the editors of LALME, especially for the early stages of the analysis.80 In order to keep the corpus parallel, I decided to omit the Trinity Seven Planets in Trinity O.1.77 and the numerous additional texts in the two Second Generation manu­scripts.81 Including them would provide extra material for 77 

Matheson, ‘The Dialect of the Hammond Scribe’; McIntosh, ‘Present Indicative Plural Forms’; Taavitsainen, ‘Scientific Language and Spelling Standardisation’ and ‘Scriptorial “House-Styles”’; and John Trevisa’s Translation, ed. by Waldron. 78  Version 3.2.4 for Macintosh. Antconc is a Freeware concordance program developed by Laurence Anthony at the Faculty of Science and Engineering at Waseda Uni­ver­sity, Japan. 79  I made transcriptions of the Middle English sections in the Sloane manu­scripts. The translations were made using Microsoft Word 2007 for Mac, converted to TEI XML P5 using the online Oxgarage service. 80  LALME, 2.1.3. 81  One text in Gonville and Caius 336/725, Guy de Chauliac’s Chirurgia Magna (fols 17– 42v) is included in the analysis by Taavitsainen, ‘Scriptorial “House-Styles”’. The text is in the first part of this manu­script, which is earlier and copied in a different hand.

Chapter 6

172

Table 14. The word count in the Sibling Group. Sloane 2320

Boston 19

Sloane 3566

Practica Urinarum

431

428

435

433

439

429

Twenty-Jordan Series

383

426

423

486

425

427

John of Burgundy

1374

1349

1377

1368

1388

1381

Seven Planets

233

231

234

231

—

—

Overall

2421

2434

2469

2518

2252

2237

Text

Trinity Gonville and Takamiya O.1.77 Caius 336/725 33

Table 15. The word count in the Core Group. Sloane 1118

Sloane 2567

Sloane 2948

Add. 19674

3522

1635

2634

10088

analysis but would remove the advantage of working with a parallel corpus that enables identification of variation in how the different scribes write the exact same passage. Moreover, if the scribe in these manu­scripts was not translating into his own dialect but copying literatim from his exemplar, the additional texts could introduce forms that are not characteristic of the Sibling Texts into the results, whereas even if the language of the Sibling Texts proved to be Mischsprache, the forms might be able to reveal something about their provenance. For the Core Group, I  included all the Middle English in the sections which can be identified as belonging to the Sloane group. I left out one text, the alchemical verses of King’s Bath on the final leaf of Booklet A in Sloane 1118. This is because the language of poetry is typically more conservative than the language of prose and sometimes deliberately anachronistic, and the verses contain dialectal features not found elsewhere in the manu­script, which might skew the results. Add. 19674 contains several times more Middle English than the other manu­scripts in the group. I use a 10,000-word sample of it. The sample size is the same which is used in the MEMT corpus.82

82 

Taavitsainen and Pahta, ‘The Corpus of Early English Medical Writing’.

Dialect and Dialectology

173

The Sibling Group: Forms from London Standards Table 16 overleaf gives the forms relevant for Types I to IV London English found in the Sloane Sibling Group with exact word count. In this I follow the usage of Taavitsainen and Matheson. The standard form which is most common is given in bold. The type of London English that it represents is given on the right (see Table 13 for the canonical forms of each type). THESE. The form used in the Sloane Siblings is characteristic of Type IV these in contrast to the earlier Type III form thise. These is the only form used in Boston 19, Gonville and Caius 336/725, and Takamiya 33. The form in Trinity O.1.77 is þese, which is essentially the same but spelled with a thorn.83 Sloane 3566 contains more variation than the others: thes (2), these (1), þese (1), and þes (1), and the Type IV spelling is found only as a minor variant. THEY. The modern spelling they is the only variant in three manu­scripts: Boston 19 and the two Second Generation manu­scripts. Trinity O.1.77 contains spellings with thorn: þey (5) and þei (1). Sloane 3566, again, contains the highest number of variant spellings: they (2), thei (1), þey (2), and þey (1). According to Samuels, they-spelling is a characteristic of London English for Types III and IV and contrasts with the Type II forms þai and hij.84 SUCH. The item is found only once in each manu­script. The spelling is always such(e), which Samuels lists as one of the characteristic Type IV spellings in contrast to Type III swich(e).85 ANY. The item is found twice in each manu­script, and spelled any in all of the manu­scripts except Trinity O.1.77, in which the spelling is eny in both of the cases. They contrast with the earlier Type I Central Midland Standard core form ony. MUCH. In this case, the spelling is closer to Type I. Sloane 3566 has myche (3); Boston 19 mych (2) and muche (1); Trinity O.1.77 moche (2) and mych (1); and the two Second Generation manu­scripts both mych (2) and myche (1). Type III and IV spellings moch(e) and much(e) are only found as minor variants in two manu­scripts. 83 

This may, of course, have dialectal significance, see, e.g., Benskin, ‘The Letters and in Later Middle English’. 84  Samuels, ‘Some Applications’, p. 70. 85  On the final e, see Rogos, ‘Isles of Systemacity in the Sea of Prodigality?’

eny (2) moche (2), mych (1)

they (4) — such (1) any (2) mych (2), muche (1) shuld (2), shulde (1)

they (2), thei (1), þey (2), þey (1)

—

suche (1)

any (2)

myche (3)

shuld (2), shulde (1), shalde pl (1)

wull (2), wil (1), wyl (1)

THESE

THEY

THEIR

SUCH

ANY

MUCH

SHOULD (sg)

WILL (sg)

THOUGH

AGAINST

ageyn (4), ageyne (1), ageyns (1) ageyn (5)

ageyne (3), ageyns (1), ageyne (1)

ageyn (4), ageyne (1)

ageyn (2), ageynn (2), ageyns (1), ageyne (2)

þough (1)

though (1)

thow (1)

will (2), woll (1), wylt (1) —

will (3), wol (1)

wil (3), w ille (1)

will (4)

shulde (2), shuld (1)

mych (2), myche (1)

any (2)

suche (1)

—

they (6)

these (2)

—

shulde (3)

mych (2), myche (1)

any (2)

suche (1)

—

they (6)

these (3)

Gonville and Caius 336/725 Takamiya 33

sholde (3) shold, pl (1)

such (1)

—

þey (5), þei (1)

þese (5)

these (6)

thes (2), these (1), þese (1), þes (1)

Trinity O.1.77

Boston 19

Sloane 3566

Feature

Table 16. Standard forms in the Sibling Group.

Types III and IV as minor variants, much variation

Type III

Type III

Types III and IV

Type I

Type IV

Type IV

—

Types III and IV variation

Type IV

Variant

174 Chapter 6

— þorough (1), þorugh (1)

— þorugh (1), thoþugh (1) but (10)

—

thorough (2)

but (10)

—

—

WORLD

THROUGH

BUT

GAVE (1/3 sg)

GIVEN

— — — self (1)

—

—

—

self (1)

—

OLD

THE—SAME

SAW (1/3 sg, 2 sg, pl)

SELF

STEAD

—

ner…ne (1)

NEITHER … NOR ne…neþer (1)

—

—

not (21)

not (16), nat (4)

not (20)

NOT

—

silf (1)

—

—

—

ne…ne (1)

—

—

but (9)

while (1), whiles (1)

while (1), whiles (1)

whyle (1), whylys (1)

WHILE

—

self (1)

—

—

—

ne…ne (1)

—

—

but (9)

thurgh (1)

—

not (17)

while (1), whils (1)

—

self (1)

—

—

—

ne…ne (1)

—

—

but (9)

thurgh (1)

—

not (17)

whilis (1), while (1)

—

Type IV

—

—

—

Non-London forms

—

—

TYPE IV

Type III and Type IV

—

Type IV

Type III and IV

Dialect and Dialectology 175

Chapter 6

176

SHOULD (sg). The spellings for this item vary between u and o in the vowel. Sloane 3566 has shuld (2) and shulde (1); Boston 19 has the identical shuld (2) and shulde (2); and Trinity O.1.77 has sholde (3) for singular and shold (1) for plural. The spellings are a mixture of Type III and Type IV forms, since shold(e) is characteristic of the former and shuld(e) of the latter. However, the item is spelled consistently with an initial sh, which represents Type III and IV usage and differs from the Type II sch. An interesting minor observation is that the two Second Generation manu­scripts differ, although they were copied by the same scribe and often contain exactly the same forms. Takamiya 33 has shulde (2) and shuld (1) for singular, whereas the form is always shulde in Gonville and Caius 336/725 in both singular and plural. WILL (sg). The manu­scripts also contain a wide range of spellings for this item. Sloane 3566 has wull (2), wil (1), and wyl (1); Trinity O.1.77 wil (3) and wille (1); and Gonville and Caius 336/725 will (3) and wol (1). Boston 19, in contrast, contains the item four times with the modern spelling will (4). Takamiya 33 has one instance of wylt for the third person singular. The forms wil, wyl, wille, will, and wol are all London forms. The forms wul and wull, in contrast, are not found in any of the LPs in London. The form wull is found as a minor in LP 432, used by Taavitsainen as representative of the Central Midlands Standard.86 However, she does not include the item in her analysis. The form wylt in Takamiya is a curious case. It is found in only three LPs (7351, 7352, 7353), all of which are localized in Herefordshire in the West Midlands, on the Welsh border. THOUGH. Boston 19 contains the modern spelling, which according to Samuels distinguishes Types III and IV from Type II þei(ȝ). Trinity O.1.77 has essentially the same spelling with a thorn, typical for this manu­script. Sloane 3566 has a non-standard thow, which is discussed below. This item is not found in the two Second Generation manu­scripts, because it is in the short Seven Planets text which they lack. AGAINST. There is considerable spelling variation with this item, but only with the ending. The initial grapheme is always a, the middle one is always ey, and the consonant is g: ‘[O]rthographic variation has its own regional patterns. But it is also rule-bound and generative.’87 The forms are in line with Types III 86  87 

Taavitsainen, ‘Scriptorial “House-Styles”’, p. 143. Benskin, ‘The “Fit”-Technique Explained’, p. 24.

Dialect and Dialectology

177

and IV, which represent a stark departure from the characteristic Type II forms oȝain(s) and aȝen, even though the main Type III spelling ageyns is found only as a minor variant. WHILE. Similar to the previous item, the forms found in these manu­scripts can be said to follow Types III and IV, in spite of considerable variation in the ending. According to Samuels, the main contrast is between Type II forms þerwhile(s) and þat and Type III whil. NOT. The Type IV form not is found in all manu­scripts except Boston 19, which has the Type III nat (4) as a minor variant. THROUGH. Sloane 3566 contains the canonical Type IV spelling thorough (2). Boston 19 and Trinity O.1.77 have spellings with thorn, which otherwise resemble the Type IV spelling. Perhaps surprisingly given the late date, both of the Second Generation manu­scripts contain the prototypical Type III form thurgh. According to Samuels, the opposition is between the Type III thurgh and Type IV thorough and þorow(e). BUT. All Sibling Group manu­scripts contain the Type IV and modern spelling but, and there is no trace of Type III bot. NEITHER…NOR. The forms found in the Sloane Siblings are very provincial and do not follow any of the London Types. Sloane 3566 contains the phrase ‘ne vse no bathes neþer swete’. LALME places the construction neþer…ne in the Central Midlands and not in London at all. The forms found in Boston 19, in which the passage reads ‘ner vse bo batthis ne swete’, are even more restricted. The construction ner…ne can be found in a single LP (553), which happens to be localized in Rutland, the hypothetical location for a surgical scriptorium proposed by McIntosh.88 Trinity O.1.77 and the Second Generation manu­ scripts have a construction with ne…ne. This is rare too, and can be found in a single LP (4568) localized on the border of Norfolk and Suffolk as well as in Herefordshire and Gloucestershire in the West Midlands, near Wales. SELF. The majority of the manu­scripts contain the Type IV and modern spelling self, with the exception of Trinity O.1.77, which contains a Type I Central Midland form silf.

88 

McIntosh, ‘Present Indicative Plural Forms’.

178

Chapter 6

Conclusions The limited corpus of c. 2200–2500 words does not contain examples of all the items that can be used to characterize London English according to Samuels. GAVE 1/3 sg, GIVEN, OLD, SAW, and STEAD are missing. What can be said is that Type III and IV forms are well attested in the data. Type IV forms include these, such, any, shulde, not, thorough, and self. Type III forms include they, sholde, will(e), though, thurgh, and nat. The usage is closest to standard English in the Second Generation manu­scripts, and Boston 19, which is dateable to 1468. The wider variation in Sloane 3566 and Trinity O.1.77 may point to an earlier date of compilation. However, the Second Generation manu­scripts contain a more conservative form of THROUGH, thurgh, than the earlier three. Taavitsainen identifies several Type I Central Midland forms in the Middle English Medical Texts (MEMT) corpus, but there are only two instances of these in the present data.89 Type I forms are dominant in one item, mych(e). In addition, Trinity O.1.77 contains moche, which is found only a single time, and the variant form mych in all manu­scripts. Likely explanations for this difference — that is, the dominance of Type I forms — are its later date, 1450s to 1490s, and possibly also the different genre to the texts examined by Taavitsainen, who concentrated mainly on surgeries. The only forms which are not attested in London are wull (2) in Sloane 3566 and, rather peculiarly, the forms used for NEITHER…NOR in all manu­ scripts, which are rare and provincial. However, nearly all the forms used by the scribes conform to some type of London language, explicable as the type of variation one might expect ‘between the usages of any dozen or so London residents of the time’.90 There is enough evidence to draw the same conclusion as Matheson did with the Hammond scribe: ‘[s]uch a pattern of correspondences points clearly to a scribe working in later fifteenth-century London, copying for a local readership.’91 Alternatively, the appearance of these forms can interpreted as the ‘colourless’ Middle English that is found after 1430, because at this point when the incipient standards were spreading it is possible to find features of London English used elsewhere.

89 

Cf. Taavitsainen, ‘Scientific Language and Spelling Standardisation’. Benskin, ‘Chancery Standard’, p. 21. 91  Matheson, ‘The Dialect of the Hammond Scribe’, p. 82. 90 

Dialect and Dialectology

179

The Sibling Group: Dialectal Variation This section contains an analysis of the forms which display considerable variation across the parallel corpus of the Sloane Sibling manu­scripts. The selection is based on two criteria: first, the form must display variation between the different manu­scripts; second, it must be a dialectally distinctive feature for the East and West Midlands, as well as the south. Variants that are indicated by LALME as dialectally distinctive only for the north or Ireland are not considered. LALME consists of three subcorpora. The northern one was primarily compiled by McIntosh, the southern one by Samuels, and the Irish one by Benskin. The northern corpus ‘covers the northern part of the area surveyed and represents material collected for the NOR corpus only. The southern limit of this area […] extends from the Welsh border through the Midlands into north Suffolk. The area south of this line is a terra incognita in so far as the reported distributions are concerned’.92 I left out the following items: AIR, BETWEEN pr, CAST vb. FURTHER, HEAD, and HEART, even though they were attested in the data. The reason for this is that AIR, BETWEEN, and CAST are representative only of the northern part of the corpus; FURTHER and HEAD of the north and Ireland; and HEART only of Ireland. Table 17 includes all the features that differ from the other Sloane Siblings and may therefore be dialectally distinctive, and which are taken into account in this analysis. Dominant variants are underlined. Minor variants which differ from the other manu­scripts are in bold typeface. Sloane 2320 is analyzed as a part of the Core Group, but I include it in Table 17, since it illustrates how the language of the Core Group differs from the Sibling codices. Interesting forms are presented on dot maps based on eLALME. They illustrate the distribution of specified variants with regional significance. Each dot stands for a repository in which a certain feature has been found in anchor texts or into which it has been localized using the fit technique. The maps ‘have the advantage over isoglosses in that they do not in themselves imply artificially sharp linguistic divides; rather they reflect the way in which one distribution fades into another’.93 Most of the maps illustrate only a single feature, but some combine two or three features into the same map. The features are then discussed in the analysis. 92  See LALME [accessed 4 March 2016]. 93  See LALME [accessed 4 March 2016].

fro (4), froo (1) after (2)

wolde (1) from (4), fro (1) aftire (2) thann (9), than (1) thann (2), þann (1), than (1) though (1) yif (31), if (1)

fro (5), from (1) after (2) þan (5), than (3), þanne (2) þan (3), than (1) thow (1) yf (20), if (11)

fro (6)

after (2)

thenne (7), then (2), than (1)

than (3), thanne (1)

though (1)

yef (26), if (1), yf (1)

FROM

AFTER

THEN

THAN

THOUGH

IF

if (30), ȝif (1)

þough (1)

þan (4)

þan (6), þanne (2), than (2)

wold (1)

ben (8), are (1), aren (1)

wulde (1)

WOULD (sg)

any (2)

eny (2)

if (11), yiff (7), yif (5), yff (5), yf (1)

than

than (8), then (1)

after (2)

fro (5), from (1)

wolde (1)

been (6)

hem (3)

it (65)

Gonville and Caius 336/725

hem (4)

wolde (1)

ben (3), be (2)

ARE

them (4)

bee (1), benn (1), been (1), arn (1)

any (2)

ANY

hem (4), them (1)

it (65)

it (60), hit (1), yt (1)

ben (5), ben (1)

them (2), theym (1), thaym (1)

THEM

it (58), hit (4), hyt (3), yt (1)

Trinity O.1.77

Boston 19

any (2)

it (55), hit (9)

IT

Sloane 3566

any (2)

Sloane 2320

Feature

Table 17. Dialectal forms in the Sibling Group.

if (14), yiff (7), yf (5),yif (5)

then (1)

than (10), thann (1)

after (2)

fro (5), from (1)

wolde (1)

been (6)

any (2)

hem (4)

it (65)

Takamiya 33

180 Chapter 6

while (1), whiles (1) not (21)

while (1), whiles (1) not (16), nat (4)

whyle (1), whylys (1) not (20) ne (2), neþer (1), noþer (1) thorough (2) whan (6), when (1)

while (1), whiles (1)

not (20)

ne (4)

through (2)

whenne (5), whenn (1), when (1)

but (8), butte (1)

WHILE

NOT

NOR

THROUGH

WHEN

BUT

CALLED (ppl) callid (3)

callyd (2), clepyd (1) do (1) dodoþ (1) euyl (8), euyll (1), euylle (1)

called (3)

doo (2)

doo-

doothe (1)

euel (6), evel (3), euell (2)

DO (inf )

DO (vb)

DOES (3sg)

EVIL

evill (8), euyll (1), euyl (1), evyll (1)

doth (1)

do (2)

but (10)

but (10)

whann (6), when (1)

þorugh (1), thoþugh (1)

euyl (8), euylle (2)

doot (1)

do (1), doo (1)

callid (3)

but (9)

whan (7)

þorough (1), þorugh (1)

ne (4)

ȝit (1), ȝitte (1)

yit (2)

ȝit (1)

yet (1), yette (1)

YET

ne (3), ner (1)

sythen (1)

sithenn (1)

sythyn (1)

sithen (1)

SINCE (conj)

ageyn (5)

ageyne (3), ageyns (1), ageynn (1)

ageyn (4), ageyne (1)

ageyn (2), agenst (1), ageyne (1), agayne (1)

AGAINST

euyll (6), euyl (4)

doth (1)

do (2)

called (3)

but (9)

whan (4), when (1)

thurgh (1)

ne (4)

not (17)

while (1), whils (1)

yitte (1)

sithen (1)

ageyn (2), ageynn (2), ageyns (1), ageyne (2)

euyll (7), evyll (1), euyl (1)

doth (1)

do (2)

called (3)

but (9)

whan (4), when (1)

thurgh (1)

ne (4)

not (17)

whilis (1), while (1)

yitte (1)

sithen (1)

ageyn (4), ageyne (1), ageyns (1)

Dialect and Dialectology 181

hadde (1)

too (2) wheithir (2), whethir (2), whethire (1)

geten (1)

gyve (1) [imperative] gefe (1)

nygh (1) self (1) ij wheither (6)

what (4) who (6), whoso (1)

goten (1)

hadde (1)

lyfly (1)

nyghe (1)

self (1)

twoo (1)

whether (6)

what (3), whatte (1)

whoo (7)

GOTTEN

GIVE (pres)

HAD (sg)

LIFE* ‘liyf ’

NIGH

SELF

TWO

WHETHER

WHAT

WHO

lyfly (1)

had (1)

geve (1)

ffirst (1), first (2)

first (3)

FIRST (undiff )

who (6), whoso (1)

what (4)

self (1)

nygh (1)

lyfly (1)

first (2), ffirst (1)

eyenn (1)

yenn (1)

yen (1)

EYES

Boston 19

Sloane 3566

Sloane 2320

Feature

Table 17. Dialectal forms in the Sibling Group (cont.).

nygh (1) self (1)

nyȝe (1) silf (1)

who (7)

what (4)

wheþer (6)

who (4)

what (3)

whether (4), whethir (2)

two (2)

lyfly (1)

liyfly (1)

two (2)

had (1)

gif (1)

first (4), firste (3)

-

Gonville and Caius 336/725

had (1)

gif (1)

first (2), ffurste (1)

eyen (1)

Trinity O.1.77

who (4)

what (2), whatt (1)

whether (6)

two (2)

self (1)

nygh (1)

lyfly (1)

had (1)

gyf (1)

first (4), firste (2)

-

Takamiya 33

182 Chapter 6

Dialect and Dialectology

183

London, British Library, MS Sloane 3566: Dominant Variants I used the following major variants as the basis for initial localization: IT it (58), THEM hem (4), ARE ben (5), FROM fro (5), THEN þan (5), THAN þan (3), IF yf (20), AGAIN ageyn (4), WHEN whan (6), EVIL euyl (8), BUT but (10), WHETHER wheither (6), and WHO who (6). The items it, fro, and yf are extremely frequent and have been attested all over England. The h- initial spelling hem and using þan for THEN and THEM are predominantly Midland features, as is ageyn and the spelling but with a u, but they only limit the provenance to south of the Humber.

Figure 36. THEM hem, THEN þan, BUT but (left); WHETHER wheither (right). All maps in this chapter are reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey and LALME.94

The most interesting dominant variant is the last one, wheither (6). LALME only lists it in two LPs, 6400 and 5990, both of which are manu­scripts of Chaucer and have been localized to the vicinity of London. The LP 6400 is a combined profile of the Hengwrt and Ellesmere manu­scripts of the Canterbury Tales, and a canonical example of Type III London English, while 5990 is a manu­script containing Chaucer’s Boece, which is localized in Kent but close to London (see Figure 36). The scribe’s usage of the THEM hem is also in line with the language of the earliest Chaucer manu­scripts and Type III London English.94 94 

The maps show pre-1974 boundaries of counties, which is the normal LALME practice.

Chapter 6

184

Sloane 3566: Potentially Significant Minor Variants I also selected a number of forms in Sloane 3566 that deviate from those found in other Sloane Siblings: CALLED (ppl) callyd (2), clepyd (1). WOULD (sg) wulde (1), THOUGH thow (1), SINCE (conj) sythyn (1), WHILE whyle (1), whylys (1), DOES (3sg) doþ (1), EYES yenn (1), GOTTEN geten (1), and GIVE (pres) gefe (1). The forms showed a variety of distributions, but all are Midland forms. Some of them are more common in the East Midlands and East Anglia, some in the West Midlands, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, and Gloucestershire in particular. However, two items, sythyn and gefe, are not found in the West Midlands, and geten is not found in East Anglia. Figure 37 shows their distributions. The common denominator for these forms is the London metropolitan area, where they are also found.

Figure 37. GOTTEN geten (left); SINCE (conj. and adv.) sythyn (right).

There is one item, gefe, that does not support localization in the capital (see Figure 38). It is attested sporadically in the north, North Midlands, and East Anglia, and is not found in the London LPs listed in the LALME. However, since the item occurs only a single time, it can fairly safely be dismissed as a scribal idiosyncrasy.95 The evidence thus supports the codicological localization in London or its vicinity, with a sprinkling of West and East Midland forms. 95 

Cf. Benskin, ‘The “Fit”-Technique Explained’, p. 24.

Dialect and Dialectology

185

The Boston Manu­script: Dominant Variants As Taavitsainen notes, the Boston manu­script is ‘valuable for knowledge of its provenance’: it was copied by William Ebesham, based in Westminster, for John Paston (II) from Norfolk in the summer of 1468.96 She also remarks that ‘it does not yield much material for dialectological analysis’ and that ‘[s]ome forms point to the Central Midlands rather than London’.97 In her pre-LALME analysis, Martha Harley identified the dialect of Boston 19 as East Midland.98 She gives the following reasons. First, Old English long a becomes rounded in

Figure 38. GIVE (pres.) gefe.

Figure 39. AGAINST ageyne; WHEN whann. 96 

Taavitsainen, ‘Scriptorial “House-Styles”’, p. 235. Taavitsainen, ‘Scriptorial “House-Styles”’, p. 235. 98  Harley, ‘The Middle English Contents’, p. 173. 97 

Chapter 6

186

Figure 40. EVIL evill (left); IF yif (right).

who-so. Second, the ending of the present indicative third-person plural is -en, for example, in fallen. Third, the forms sal/suld(e) are not found in the manu­ script; instead, the consonant cluster sh is used consistently word-initially in shall. Fourth, Old English a is retained before a nasal, for example, in mannys. Fifth, the object (or oblique) case of the third-person plural pronoun is them. Sixth, the ending for the third-person singular is -ith, -yth or -eth. Seventh, ‘[t] here is no evidence of the voicing of OE initial f’.99 Finally, the ending for the present participle is -yng, ‘as in askyng’ with ‘a single exception’: passand.100 Of these, the word who-so is somewhat problematic, since it is possible that the vowel was unstressed and may have behaved differently because of this.101 I used the following items as the basis for fit-analysis: it (60), them (4), from (4), THEN thann (9), IF yif (31), AGAINST ageyne (3), YET yit (2), WHEN whann (6), NOR ne (3), but (10), CALLED callid (3), evill (8), what (4) and who (6). Based on it, them, from, thann, and but, the fit technique produces a southern or Midlands localization, including London, resembling Figure 36 (left) above. 99 

Harley, ‘The Middle English Contents’, p. 173. Harley, ‘The Middle English Contents’, p. 173. 101  Nicole Studer-Joho, personal communication, 2013. See also Studer-Joho, Diffusion and Change, pp. 39–40. 100 

Dialect and Dialectology

187

However, as noted by Taavitsainen, some forms in the manu­script belong to the East and West Midlands rather than London. These are ageyne (3), which is the dominant form of AGAINST, and whann, which Ebesham spells with an abbreviation. LALME lists the expanded form for one LP in Norfolk (4665). However, the spelling whan is characteristic of both the Midlands and the south of England (see Figure 39 above). Not all forms can be fitted in Norfolk. Ebesham’s spelling evill (8) argues against a localization in Norfolk. It is found in London and the border between Essex and Suffolk. The spelling yif (31) is not found in Norfolk either, although it can be found on the border between Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. The Boston Manu­script: Potentially Significant Minor Variants I also inspected the following minor variants ARE bee (1), arn (1); AFTER aftir(e) (2), YET yit (2), NOT nat (4), NOR ner (1), EYES eyenn (1), GIVE geve (1), HAD hadd(e) (1), TWO too (1) and WHETHER wheithir (2), whethir (2), whethir(e) (1), and THROUGH þorugh (1) (see Table 16). The results show a concentration in the East and West Midlands, as well as some forms which are typical for Norfolk and Suffolk. Forms which have a general provenance in the West and East Midlands, but are less frequent in the south, include ben, been, aftir, yit, ner, nat, þorugh, eyen, hadde, too, whethir, and whetrire. The two forms of ARE that are unique to this manu­script, bee and arn, show a concentration in London and the East Midlands. These are illustrated by Figure 41. The former is a rare form, but one is found in two LPs in London, while the latter shows a distribution in East Anglia. The latter form is also found in the repertoire of the Hammond scribe. Matheson notes, ‘[t]he form arn […] is very common throughout Suffolk and quite common in London’.102 Some forms in this manu­script are concentrated in the Central Midlands. These include, for example, the form þorugh (see the map below) and aftir(e). However, they are also found in London, as well as the West and East Midlands. Two minor variants are not found in London: wheithir (1) and geve (1). The majority of the forms I am referring to can be found in London, West, and East Midlands. Two major variants, ageyne (3) and whann (6), and two minor variants, wheithir (1) and geve (1), are not identified as London forms in eLALME at all. It would be tempting to try and explain these by connection with 102 

Matheson, ‘The Dialect of the Hammond Scribe’, p. 83.

Chapter 6

188

Figure 41. ARE arn (left); ARE bee (right).

Figure 42. WHETHER wheithir (left); GIVE geve (right).

Norfolk, which is where the Paston family was based. However, there are also forms which are not found in Norfolk, including two major variants, yif (31) and evill (8). Since the manu­script dates eighteen years after the LALME period and forty-three years after the point when dating of southern manu­scripts

Dialect and Dialectology

189

becomes unreliable, it is most satisfactory to explain the non-London forms as products of the language contact phenomena in the capital, when the language was influenced by people migrating from East and West Midlands areas. The Trinity Manu­script: Dominant Variants Taavitsainen places the manu­script in East Anglia, but she also notes forms from the Central Midlands: ‘One of the Sloane group half-sister manu­scripts, Cambridge, Trinity College MS O.1.77 (dated 1460), has a very provincial character with forms localisable to East Anglia.’103

Figure 43. AGAINST ageyn (left); EVIL euyl (right).

The following major variants were used for the analysis: it (65), THEM hem (4), ARE ben (8), FROM fro (4), THEN þan (6), THAN þan (4) IF if (30), AGAINST ageyn (5), not (21), NOR ne (4), WHEN whan (7), but (9), CALLED callid (3), EVIL euyl (8), WHETHER wheþer (6), what (4), and who (7). Some of the items are used everywhere in the country, fro, it, if, not, ne; others narrow the geographical location to the south or Midlands: hem, þan, whan, and but. The forms are the same as in Sloane 3566 (see Figure 36 above for the distribution of hem, þan, and but). 103 

Taavitsainen, ‘Standardisation, House Styles, and the Scope of Variation’, p. 103.

Chapter 6

190

In addition, ageyn (5), euyl (8), and callid (3) are of interest as they narrow the likely location down to East Anglia, London, Northampton, or Warwickshire. The Trinity Manu­script: Potentially Significant Minor Variants The following minor variants were taken into consideration for Trinity O.1.77: ANY eny (2), ARE are (1), aren (1), WOULD (sg ) wold (1), FROM froo (1), THOUGH þough (1), IF ȝif (1), SINCE (conj) sythen (1), YET ȝit (1), ȝitte (1), Figure 44. An isogloss based on the major forms. THROUGH þorough (1), þorugh (1), DO doo (1), DOES doot (1), FIRST ffurste (1), LIFE ‘liyf ’ liyfly (1) and SELF silf (1). These items show a familiar London and Midlands distribution. A number of items can be found everywhere in the south of England, wold, froo, eny, ȝif,

Figure 45. THROUGH þorough (left); FIRST furste (right).

Dialect and Dialectology

191

Figure 46. DO (inf ) doo (left); an -iy- spelling for LIFE ‘liyf ’ liyfly (right).

ȝit, and others everywhere in the Midlands and London, but not in Kent and the Southwest: are, aren, þough, sythen, þorugh. In comparison to Sloane 3566 and Boston 19, the dialect of Trinity O.1.77 has a stronger Central to West Midlands component. The forms þorough and doo are not attested in East Anglia, and ȝitte, silf, and furste are more frequent in the West Midlands with isolated attestations in the East. In this manu­script there are no items which would not be found in the West Midlands. Figure 45 illustrates the geographical distribution of þorough and furste. Two items are of particular interest: doo and liyfly. The first, doo, is a minor variant in this manu­script, but it is the main spelling in the Core Group, with eighty occurrences in Add. 19674 and seventeen in Sloane 2948 (see Table 20 below). The item also has a very curious geographical distribution. It is found in eight LPs (4003, 4005, 4008, 4009, 4012, 4013, 4015, and 4017), all of which are administrative documents in the Northampton Borough Records. The second item of interest occurs a single time as a minor variant: liyfly. Taavitsainen remarks on it: ‘[a]n intesting -iy- spelling is found in liyfly’.104 According to eLALME, the form is rare, but it is found in Suffolk and Essex, very close to London, as well as in both western and eastern Northamptonshire, which means the isogloss can be extended there. The form doot is not found in eLALME. 104 

Taavitsainen, ‘Scriptorial “House-Styles”’, p. 236.

Chapter 6

192

To conclude: Trinity O.1.77 contains a selection of forms from the East and Central Midlands. Compared to the other two Siblings, the dialect has a stronger Central Midlands component. Based on the major variants, the location can be narrowed down to East Anglia, the West Midlands, and London. Five minor forms suggest the West Midlands rather than East Anglia, wold, froo, eny, ȝif, ȝit. There are two locations where all the forms fit: London and Northampton­ shire. However, a single item, doo, is attested only in the latter. Not too much should be made of a single minor spelling, but doo is the major variant in the Core Group, where it occurs in all manu­scripts, including eighty instances in Add. 19674. Consequently, its occurrence in Trinity O.1.77 suggests a connection between the two groups. My results differ from those of Taavitsainen, as she places Trinity O.1.77 in East Anglia. There are two likely reasons: first, Taavitsainen also takes the Trinity Seven Planets into account, which I omit from my analysis; and second, she includes the forms for BETWEEN, which I excluded, because they are part of the northern corpus of LALME, and may give skewed results for the south of England. One thing which has to be noted is that the Northamptonshire component is present in Type II London English, and it is possible that the appearance of these forms can also be explained by this. The Second Generation According to Voigts, the Second Generation manu­scripts are both copied by the same scribe.105 Consequently, I  treat the dialect of the manu­scripts together. The repertoire of forms used by the scribes is nearly identical, and the rare instances in which a different form is used — such as IF gif (1), yif (1), or WHETHER whether, whethir — do fit within the range of variation that can be expected in the language of a single scribe. Even though the paleographical dating suggests a date as late as the 1490s, which is considerably later than 1425, the date given by the editors of LALME as marking the end of reliable geographical localization for southern texts, I selected three forms that stand out from the rest of the Sibling Group for analysis: IF yiff (7), YET yitte (1), and THROUGH thurgh (1). The results show a fairly limited spread for the forms yiff and yitte. Both are present in Ipswich and in the vicinity of London, and yitte in the north. 105 

Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 27.

Dialect and Dialectology

193

Figure 47. IF yiff (left); YET yitte (right).

Figure 48. THROUGH thurgh (left); WILL wylt (right).

Thurgh has a wider spread, but it is also present in London and Ipswich. This presence is perhaps notable, since it is a canonical Type III London English form and its appearance in these two manu­scripts is surprising, since the earlier ones have a Type IV variant. The spelling for wylt (see Table 16 above) tells a dif-

194

Chapter 6

ferent story. It is only attested in the West Midlands. These four forms do not, of course, suffice to locate a dialect, and the dates are too late for this. Furthermore, they give conflicting results. It has to be concluded that their dialect is unlocalizable but fairly close to the London forms that were becoming standard.

The Core Group: Forms from London Standards We now come to the dialectological analysis of the Core Group. This section handles the appearance of forms belonging to Samuels’s Types I to IV in the Sloane Core manu­scripts. The approach is similar to that taken with the Sibling Group above. The standard form (be it of any of the four types) which is most frequent is given in bold. The type or types that it represents are given on the right. The results are discussed below. I treat Sloane 2320 as a Core Group manu­script, because that is where it has dialectal similarities. THESE. The forms used for this item are a mixture of standard Type IV forms and the non-standard thees(e). The Type IV these is the dominant form in Sloane 2320 and the only form in Sloane 2948. It also occurs as a minor variant in Sloane 1118 and Add. 19674. However, thees occurs in all manu­scripts except Sloane 2567, and theese in three. If the two forms are conflated, thees(e) can be said to be the dominant spelling in Sloane 1118, with five occurrences. The form theese has a very limited distribution in LALME. It is found in only two LPs, 325 localized in Leicestershire on the border of Northamptonshire and 6021 localized in eastern Essex. The form thees is more common. It is found all over the Midlands, including East Anglia, the West Midlands, and London. However, it is particularly frequent on the border between Northamptonshire and Rutland. THEY. Two forms are used for this item: they, which is characteristic of London English from Type III onwards, and thei, which is also a variant attested in London as well as the Central Midlands. In Sloane 1118, thei is the dominant variant. THEIR. The form found in three of the manu­scripts, Sloane 1118, Sloane 2948, and Add. 19674, is theire. The canonical Type IV forms would be theyre, her, þair(e), and þeir(e). Since variation between i and y is usually considered orthographic, the form found in the Core Group can be deemed fairly close to Type IV. Sloane 2320 contains the modern spelling their. SUCH. The form is the Type IV such(e) in four of the manu­scripts. The item is not found in Add. 19674.

Dialect and Dialectology

195

Figure 49. THESE theese (left); THESE thees (right).

ANY. The form is any, which is characteristic for London English from Type II onwards. MUCH. There is some variation between much(e) and moch(e). Both are components of the London language of Types III and IV, and contrast with the Type I mych(e), which is the dominant form in Sloane Siblings. SHOULD. Likewise, this item contains variation between spellings with o and u, with a preference for Type III forms. The Type III sholde is found in Sloane 1118, Sloane 2320, and Sloane 2948. The first two also contain Type IV shulde. The earlier sch-spellings are nowhere to be found. WILL. The forms for this item are a curious mixture. The form wil is found in three manu­scripts, Sloane 1118, Sloane 2567, and Sloane 2948. This is a rather conservative usage, as the form characterizes Samuels’s Type II. Moreover, the form is dominant in Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2948, which both contain four instances of it. Type III wol(e) is dominant in Sloane 2320 and Add. 19674, in which it is the only type with twenty-five occurrences. The situation also contrasts with that in the Sloane Siblings, in which the Type IV will(e) is the most common form. In the Core Group, this item is attested only once in Sloane 1118.

—

theire (1) suche (5) any (3) muche (1), moch (1), mochil (1) sholde (2), shulde (2) wil (4), wille (1) —

their (1)

suche (1)

any (2)

muche (1), moche (1)

sholde (2), shulde (1)

wol (3), wul (1)

though (1)

ageyn (2), agenst (1), ayens (4) ageyne (1), agayne (1)

while (1), whiles (1)

THEIR

SUCH

ANY

MUCH

SHOULD (sg)

WILL (sg)

THOUGH

AGAINST

WHILE

while (2)

thei (1)

thei (5), they (2)

thei (2), they (2)

THEY

—

—

—

wil (1)

—

moche (3)

—

suche (1)

theese (1)

thees (4), these (2), theese (1)

these (4), thees (1)

THESE

Sloane 2567

Sloane 1118

Sloane 2320

Feature

Table 18. Standard forms in the Core Group.

while (2)

ayenst (1), ayeyn (1)

—

wil (4)

sholde (1)

muche (6)

any (1)

such (1), suche (1)

theire (1)

they (4), thei (1)

these (1)

Sloane 2948

while (5)

—

—

wol (25)

—

moche (16), muche (1), moch (1)

any (7)

—

theire (2)

thei (9), they (6)

these (1), theese (1)

Add. 19674

—

—

Type III

A mixture of Types II and III

A mixture of Types III and IV

Type III/IV

Type III/IV

Type IV

close to Type IV

Type III + thei

Type IV + thees(e)

Variant

196 Chapter 6

—

—

ne… ne (1)

—

the same (5), þe same (2)

GAVE (1/3 sg)

GIVEN

NEITHER …NOR

OLD

THE—SAME

self (1)

—

SELF

STEAD

SAW  — (1/3 sg, 2 sg, pl)

but (14) 

but (8), butte (1)

BUT

—

hym self (2) 

sawh (1)

the same (3)

olde (2)

—

—

—

—

thorough (3), thorugh (1)

thorugh (1), through (1)

through (2)

THROUGH

—

—

sawe (1) [2 sg]

the same (6)

—

not… nor (1)

—

—

—

the same (25)

olde (1)

—

—

—

but (15)

through (8), throughe (1), þrough (1)

—

noght (17), not (9)

—

—

hym self (2), herself (1) —

sawghe (1)

the same (34), þe same (1)

—

noo…nor (1); noȝt… nor (1)

—

—

but (3), butte (1) —

—

—

worldly (1)

—

WORLD

not (2)

not (5)

not (13), noht (1)

not (20)

NOT

—

Type II

Type II

Modern

Type III

—

—

—

Type IV

Type IV

Type III

Type IV

Dialect and Dialectology 197

198

Chapter 6

THOUGH. The Core Group manu­scripts do not contain any instances of this item apart from Sloane 2320, in which the form is the canonical Type III (and modern English) though. AGAINST. There is considerable variety in the spellings for this item, as there was with Sibling Group. Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2948 contain spellings with y, unlike Sloane 2320, which in this respect resembles the Sibling Group. Spellings with g and y are both characteristic of Type III and contrast with the earlier Type II spellings, which have a yogh. WHILE. As with the Sibling Group, the spellings for this item are in line with Types III and IV, despite variation in the ending. However, the canonical Type III form whil is not found with the exact spelling. NOT. The Type IV spelling not is the most frequent form in all manu­scripts, except Add. 19674, in which it is attested nine times as opposed to seventeen for noght. The Type III spelling nat is not found in these manu­scripts. WORLD. Sloane 1118 contains one instance of worldly. The spelling is in line with Type III world, in contrast to Type II werld or warld. THROUGH. The spellings for this item contain considerable variation. The canonical Type IV form thorough is found in Sloane 2567. However, the modern spelling through is even more common, as it is found in Sloane 2320, Sloane 1118, and Add. 19674 (eight instances). Type III spelling thurgh is not attested. BUT. This item is always spelled with a u, which is the Type IV and modern spelling. The only exception is a single occurrence of butte in Sloane 2567. The Type III spelling bot is not attested. NEITHER…NOR. The forms are not typical of London language. Sloane 2320 has the ne…ne construction which was discussed with the Siblings. Sloane 2948 contains the construction noo…nor (1) and noȝt…nor (1). Neither combination is in LALME, but the form nor+ is found only in Oxfordshire. Nevertheless, this item is not attested a sufficient number of times in the present data to justify drawing any conclusions. OLD. The spelling olde is found in Sloane 1118 and Add. 19674. This is the Type III form old(e). THE-SAME. The forms thilke and that ilke(e), which Samuels considers canonical for Type III, are not found with the meaning ‘the same’. However, the modern spelling the same is attested numerous times.

Dialect and Dialectology

199

SAID (+3 sg, 2 sg, pl). The forms here follow London language from Type II onwards. In Type I the item is spelled with an i and yogh. SELF. The item is spelled as in London English from Type II onwards. The Type I spelling silf, used in Trinity O.1.77, is not found. Conclusions Sloane Core manu­scripts contain enough forms from Types III and IV London English, with the occasional Type II form, to justify the conclusion that they were copied in the capital, or that they represent the colourless usage typical of the latter half of the fifteenth century. Type III forms include they, any, sholde, wol(e), though, worldly, and olde; Type IV forms these, such(e), shulde, not, and thoroughe; and Type II any, wil, and -self. The forms used for the item NEITHER…NOR are unusual; as they are attested only once per manu­script, they can be ignored in the analysis. The forms thees(e) and thei, however, are of interest, because they are found in four or more manu­scripts and are the dominant form in some of them. These show that the Core Group is written in a consistent dialect, which in some respects differs from Types III and IV, the canonical types for localized London manu­scripts.

The Core Group: Modern Spellings In addition to the eight canonical forms that Samuels used to characterize each of the four types of London English, the Core Group contains many items whose spelling is the same, or almost the same, as in modern English. Modern spellings as the major variant include: which, many, man, from, after, as, where, day, good, and how. In addition, shall is found as a minor variant. The spellings for haue and hath are also very close to modern English, if one takes into account that v and u are largely interchangeable in Middle English and that the third person singular did not change from -th to -s until the early modern period. The plural dayes is also almost the same as the modern one, with the exception of an additional -e-. These are included in Table 19, overleaf. Present-day English spellings are highlighted.

after (20), aftre (1) as (37) where (1) day (2)

after (2)

as (5), als (2)

where (2)

day (1)

AFTER

AS

WHERE

DAY

haue (18) hath (6) how (3)

hath (5)

how (6), howe (1)

maad (2), maade (1)

HAS (3sg)

HOW

MADE (ppl)

good (8), goode (1)

HAVE (inf )

GOOD

good (10), gode (2), goode (1)

from (10), fro (8)

fro (6)

FROM

dayes (4)

fro (1)

shal (23)

shal (15), shalbe (5)

SHALL (sg)

DAYS

shal (28), shall (1)

shal (11)

man (5)

man (9)

MAN

how (1)

hath (4)

haue (2)

good (3)

good (1), gode (1) haue (7)

dayes (8)

day (19)

where (1)

as (13)

after (3)

fro (6), from (4)

many (2)

dayes (9)

day (4)

as (12), als (2)

after (9)

man (8)

many (3)

many (1)

MANY

which (4), whiche (1)

which (1)

whiche (9), which (6)

whiche (2)

WHICH

Sloane 2948

Sloane 2567

Sloane 1118

Sloane 2320

Feature

Table 19. Forms in the Core Group that resemble present-day English.

how (2)

hath (9)

haue (10)

good (28), goode (2)

dayes (32)

day (8), daye (1)

where (2)

as (66), als (1)

after (9), aftr (1)

from (3), fro (1)

shal (61), shall (2), shalle (1)

man (15)

many (2)

Add. 19674

200 Chapter 6

Dialect and Dialectology

201

The Core Group: Dialectal Variation The Core Group manu­scripts are written in a consistent dialect. This section contains an analysis of words which are of interest from a dialectological point of view. These forms are listed in Table 20. Words which are analyzed with the LALME method are highlighted. They include both dominant variants and notable minor variants.

Figure 50. THEM theyme (left); THEM thaym (right).

THEM. The spelling them is dominant with seven instances in Sloane 2567 and 152 in Add. 19674, but theym and theim are found as minor variants across all five of the Sloane Core manu­scripts which contain Middle English. In addition, there are very occasional instances of thaym, þeym, and theyme. These forms are common in the Central to North Midlands. Theym is attested in the vicinity of London, but theyme and theim are only found in the Central Midlands. Thaym is a more northern form. The fit technique produces a localization in Leicestershire. Figure 50 shows the spread of theyme and thaym. Theym and theim are also part of the repertoire of the Hammond scribe.106 THEN: The spelling thenne is found in all five of the manu­scripts. Moreover, it is the most frequent spelling in all manu­scripts except Sloane 1118, which nevertheless contains nineteen attestations. The item is most frequent in the West 106 

Matheson, ‘The Dialect of the Hammond Scribe’, p. 67.

ayen (3)

than (1) yf (3), yif (1)

ayen (4)

than (3), thanne (1)

yef (26), if (1), yf

THAN

IF

when (7), whenne (5) called (7), callid (1), cleped (1) doo (6)

whenne (5), whenn (1), when (1)

called (3)

doo (2)

WHEN

CALLED (ppl)

DO (inf )

AGAIN

yef (2)

then (22), thenne (19), than (3)

thenne (7), then (2), than (1)

THEN

doo (80), do (6)

doo (1), do (1) doo (17), do (2)

called (2)

called (3), cleped (1)

called (1)

when (14), whenne (7)

ayen (6), ayenn (1)

yef (31), yif (7), yf (5), if (2)

than (2)

thenne (35), then (16)

them (152), þem (29), theym (17), theyme (2)

Add. 19674

when (4), whenne (1)

ayen (1)

yf (31), yef (5), yif (3)

than (1)

thenne (2), then (1)

them (3), theim (1)

Sloane 2948

when (9), whenne (2)

thenne (15), then (9), thein (1)

them (7), theim (2), theym (1), hem (1)

them (15), theym (1), þem (2), þeym (1)

them (2), theym (1), thaym (1)

THEM

Sloane 2567

Sloane 1118

Sloane 2320

Feature

Table 20. Dialectal forms in the Core Group.

202 Chapter 6

flesshe (1)

FLESH

WHOLE

TWO

twoo (1) hool (1)

seye (3), saye (1), sey (1)

oon (7), oone (1)

oon (7)

oon (3), oone (2)

ONE

SAY (inf )

made (2)

maad (16), made (6), maade (2)

maad (2), maade (1)

goo (1)

yeue (3)

fyre (16), fuyre (6), fire (1)

MADE (ppl)

GOES (3sg)

GO

goo (1)

fyre (21)

FIRE

GIVE

doon (4)

doothe (1)

DONE

DOES (3sg)

hool (2)

twoo (1)

oon (3)

-

go (2)

yeue (25), yeve (5)

flesh (1)

doon (1)

hool (34)

twoo (1)

seye (2), saye (2)

oon (4)

made (1)

gooth (2)

goo (5)

yeue (19), yeve (1)

flesshe (4)

fyre (14), fuyre (2), fire (1)

Dialect and Dialectology 203

Chapter 6

204

Figure 51. THEN thenne (left); THAN thanne (right).

Midlands, Worcestershire, Shropshire, and Cheshire, although it is also found in London and Essex. THAN. A spelling which is parallel to the previous item, thanne, is attested once in Sloane 2320: otherwise, the spelling is than. Interestingly, thanne has a very different dialectal spread than thenne, being most common in Surrey and East Anglia. Using the fit technique on these two forms reduces the localization to two possibilities: the London metropolitan area, or the three Central Midland counties, Rutland, Leicestershire, and Northampton. IF. The spellings yef and yif are encountered in all five Core Group manu­scripts. The form yef is particularly frequent, with twenty-six occurrences in Sloane 2320 and thirty-one in Add. 19674. The item is common in the West Midlands, particularly Warwickshire and Worcestershire, and in the Home Counties, Surrey and Essex. There are also individual attestations in Norfolk and Suffolk. AGAIN. This item is spelled ayen in the manu­scripts. The spelling is typical of the Central Midlands, London, and its vicinity, particularly Surrey. WHEN. The spelling whenne, which resembles thenne and thanne, is found in all five Core Group manu­scripts. This is another West and Central Midlands form with a fairly wide attestation. There are also occurrences in the vicinity of London and Suffolk.

Dialect and Dialectology

205

CALLED (ppl). The main variant is called, but cleped is encountered in two manu­scripts, Sloane 1118 and Sloane 2948. Called is a distinctly northern spelling of the word, whereas cleped is particularly frequent in London. Isoglosses for these items meet in the Central Midlands and Norfolk. DO, DOES, DONE. The spelling doo is of particular interest, since it is without doubt the dominant form in all but one manu­script. It is found eighty times in Add. 19674, whereas do occurs only six times. In the other four Core Group manu­scripts, it is Figure 52. WHEN whenne. also the most frequent form with the single exception of Sloane 2948, which has one doo and one do. In LALME, however, the doo-spelling is extremely rare. It is found in eight LPs (4003, 4005, 4008, 4009, 4012, 4013, 4015, and 4017) in Northampton Borough Records. The doon form of DONE, which occurs four times in Sloane 1118, also has the same provenance. However, doothe as the third

Figure 53. CALLED called (left); cleped (right).

Chapter 6

206

Figure 54. DO, DONE doo, doon (left); DOES doothe (right).

person singular for DOES is found once, in Sloane 2320, and is only found in London. FIRE. This item is usually written as fyre, but Sloane 2567 and Add. 19674 also contain fuyre as a minor spelling variant, attested six times in Sloane 2567 and twice in Add. 19674. The form fuyre is particularly common in the Central to West Midlands, including Northamptonshire and Warwickshire, but it is also found in London. However, it is not found in East Anglia. FLESH. The spellings flesshe and flesh are spread fairly widely across the East, West, and Central Midlands, including Northamptonshire and London. The form flesshe is not found in Norfolk and Suffolk. GIVE. The item is spelled with an initial y as yeue or yeve. These are also spellings with a fairly limited spread in the Central to West Midlands. Both forms are also found in the vicinity of London, but the second is not found in East Anglia. GO, GOES (3sg), ONE, TWO, and WHOLE. A particular feature of the scribal dialect seems to be spelling long stressed vowels with double vowels. This includes spelling some OE words spelled with a (gān, ‘to go’; aan/ann, ‘one’; twā, ‘two’; hāl/gehāl, ‘whole’) as oo, but is not limited to them, as doo (OE dōn, ‘to do’) and theese show. Spelling the OE a as o is characteristic of the south. GO and WHOLE were only collected for the Ireland part of the LALME corpus, and

Dialect and Dialectology

207

Figure 55. FIRE fuyre (left); GIVE yeve (right).

Figure 56. TWO twoo (left); GOES (3sg) gooth (Right).

ONE for the north, and consequently I was not able to check for them. However, the form twoo is spread fairly evenly in the Central Midlands as well as the south. The form gooth is found only in the East Midlands, particularly the border of Suffolk and Essex, as well as London.

208

Chapter 6

Figure 57. MADE maad (left); an isogloss based on the dialectal forms in the Core Group (right).

MADE (ppl.) maad(e). Found in Sloane 2320 and 1118, this item is only recorded in LALME as a part of the Irish corpus, which means it is not collected systematically for other areas and the results may be skewed. However, it is recorded in LALME in Middlesex, very close to London as a part of one LP 6445, a medical manu­script containing a Middle English translation of Macer’s herbal, located in the Cheshire Record Office.

The Core Group: Conclusions Applying the fit technique to the non-standard items in the Core Group produced a coherent result — which is very surprising, as it appears, at the outset, as though several scribes participated in copying them. Nevertheless, all of the Middle English sections are copied in a single dialect, which consists of forms that belong to Samuels’s Types III and IV of London English; forms that are close to Modern English; and forms localizable to the Central Midlands, within the counties of Rutland, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, and Warwickshire. Three forms argue against this localization, doothe, gooth, and maad, but based on the principles of using the fit technique, none of the three gives a good basis for a strong case. Doothe is attested only once in the corpus, and gooth twice in a single manu­script, which makes them minor variants. Maad(e) is found several times, but the item was systematically collected only in the Ireland part of the corpus, and its single attestation in a Middlesex LP is a new

Dialect and Dialectology

209

addition to eLALME made in October 2009. However, all three are found in London and the point the editors make about metropolitan language may very well be applicable to the Core Group. The language of the Core Group can thus be described as partly standardized late Middle English with a Central Midlands colouring. However, this does not mean that the language of these manu­scripts was closely related to the Type I, Central Midland Standard — the canonical forms agree mostly with Types III and IV, and the Central Midlands forms found in these manu­scripts are different, with many being quite rare according to LALME. The forms also differ from the Chauliac/Rosarium type described by Taavitsainen, and the language of the Delta-scribe, which contains some Type II features.107 Two likely reasons for this present themselves. The first is genre variation within the domain of medicine and diachronic variation; the language of the Delta-scribe represents early fifteenth-century usage. In spite of interesting results by people like McIntosh and Taavitsainen, the dialects and standardization within the domain of medical writing have been described only very incompletely. More work is needed in this area, and hopefully studies of dialects used within medicine will shed light on where the Core Group fits in terms of their dialect. The second possibility is that even though these manu­scripts appear on the outset to have been copied by a number of hands, perhaps they were all of them copied by one individual — or perhaps the vast majority of their contents, including all Middle English texts, were copied by this single individual. The clearest changes in scribal hand correspond with changes in the language (compare, for example, the French hand in Figure 23 to Figures 20–22). Perhaps they are all changes of script rather than changes of scribal hand? The practice of using different scripts for different languages is well attested from the AngloSaxon period to the early modern period.108 Additional variation in the size and quality of the hand can be explained by variation in paper quality and ink, as well as the fact that the Group was copied over several years, spanning at least 1454 to 1462.109 107  See Taavitsainen, ‘Scriptorial House-Styles’, for the former and Waldron, ‘Dialect Aspects’, p. 84, for the latter. 108  See, e.g., Kaislaniemi, ‘Visual Aspects of Code-Switching’. For an example of AngloSaxon scribes using insular minuscule for Old English and Carolingial minuscule for Latin, see Roberts, Guide to Scripts, pp. 88–89. 109  Voigts originally wrote: ‘Several scribes appear to have participated in the writing of Sloane Group manu­scripts. The quarto manu­scripts display a number of hands, but all scripts

210

Chapter 6

Discussion and Future Directions This interesting discovery related to dialect concludes this study of codicology, multilingualism, and dialectology in the Voigts-Sloane Group, which yields new information on the languages and production circumstances of these manu­scripts. The single most important result of the detailed codicological analysis is that the Sibling Group and the Core Group are clearly two separate groups. The Sibling Group is defined by a standard anthology of medical texts copied commercially in London or its vicinity, and the Core Group consists of the remnants of a library of various medical, alchemical, and magical treatises with a standard mise-en-page. They are united by the appearance of the Sibling Set Text in the first three quires of Sloane 2320. Comparing these quires to a checklist of booklet features reveals that they most definitely constitute an independent self-sufficient codicological unit: a booklet. This codicological unit of three quires seems to have ended up in the Core Group due to the efforts of the compiler, who wanted his medicine and alchemy in a standard format. The Sibling Set Text most likely simply represented another strand of medical texts, which the compiler commissioned or copied himself. The fact that these manu­scripts are two groups rather than a single group has wider implications for scholarship. When discussing the Voigts-Sloane Group, one should always specify whether one means the Core Group or the Sibling Group. If something applies to the Core Group, it does not follow that the same thing would also apply to the Sibling Group, and vice versa. I think combining the two groups into a single one has caused some confusion in otherwise meticulous and discerning scholarship. For example, contrary to Green’s view, I do find it plausible that Paston women would have understood the contents of the Boston manu­script, as its contents are a streamlined theory-practice book that was presumably aimed at the higher end of a ‘general’ audience, such as the Pastons.110 They might not have been able to make the astrologiare based on a compressed secretary hand. Scripts often change in a codex when the language changes’; ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 29. I have discussed with Voigts (at Kalamazoo in 2015) the possibility that they may be written by a single hand, and she agrees that this may be the case. We also compared Core Group hands in manu­script images, and a number of graphs appear similar across the languages. However, clarifying whether all of the Core Group, including all of the alchemical booklets in the voluminous Sloane 1118, is really the work of a single person, or whether additional individuals may have participated to a lesser extent, requires a detailed palaeographical analysis which could not be carried out for the present study. It is a high priority for future research into these manu­scripts. 110  Green, ‘The Possibilites of Literacy’, p. 38, questions whether the Paston women ‘had the

Dialect and Dialectology

211

cal calculations, but otherwise, the treatises which require more complicated calculations and specialist knowledge on alchemy can be found in the Core Group. Moreover, when it comes to signs of provenance one should not draw conclusions across the different groups. The signature in Sloane 2948, mentioning that it was copied in London on 9 July 1462 (see Figure 3 above), does not provide evidence for the Sibling Group. William Ebesham’s connection to the Core Group is only that he was once commissioned to copy the same texts that are contained in Sloane 2320, Booklet A. Most of all, one should not use a Family Resemblance manu­script like Sloane 5467 as evidence for either Group, as its connection seems to be only of general resemblance.111 The analysis also makes important clarifications concerning the copying process of the Sibling Group. I found no evidence of speculative production. The known provenance for the Boston manu­script is a bespoke commission between John Paston (II) and William Ebesham, and in the absence of codicological signs of speculative production or scriptoria, the logical conclusion is that the other Sibling Group manu­script also originated as bespoke commissions. The Sibling Set Text seems to have constituted a standard exemplar which could either be used on its own, like in Boston 19, or joined with other medical texts, as in Sloane 2320, 3566, and Trinity O.1.77 or two Second Generation manu­scripts. The Sibling Set Text consists of a theory-practice book which represents mid-range medical learning. The remedies are presented with a streamlined theoretical framework but without systematic references to authorities or scholastic discussion of the merits of various theoretical points. The audience may well have been the gentry or lower nobility such as the Pastons, or it may also have included medical practitioners. Regardless of whether it was joined with other texts or copied on its own, in all cases the Sibling Set Text was copied by an individual scribe in its entirety. The standard anthology does satisfy one feature of books produced for a commercial market: reproduction of copies of the same text. However, the production of six codices whose physical appearance varies considerably does not qualify as mass production in comparison to the Ghent-Bruges books of hours, which survive in hundreds.

skills in logical and dialectic mathematics to absorb and assimilate the technical explanations of the “hidden” causes of disease or the calculation of the positions of the moon in the different houses’. 111  Voigts, ‘The “Sloane Group”’, p. 37, says that ‘nothing in the Group codices themselves identifies a location, but the John Shirley connection of the related Add. MS 5467 and the William Ebesham connection of the related Countway MS 19 suggest London or Westminster’.

212

Chapter 6

On top of speculative production, I found no evidence of scriptoria or independent book artisans collaborating with each other. What I did find evidence of was booklets, which are common in the Core Group. The checklists given by Robinson and Hanna helped to clarify the status of a number of codicological units in the Core Group, which originated as booklets. Thus, from a methodological point of view, this study confirms that this codicological concept, described by Robinson and Hanna, works very well in the collation of certain manu­scripts. As there is very little textual overlap in these manu­scripts, they probably represent the efforts of collecting texts, often in booklet form, by someone with an interest in alchemy but also medicine in the 1450s and 1460s. The appearance of alchemy makes it unlikely that the Core Group booklets would have been sold openly in the commercial book trade, but the contents are also very miscellaneous. They also include material that is legal, including the Sibling Set Text contained in Sloane 2320, Booklet A. The apparent contradiction between a presumed origin in commercial book production and alchemical content is resolved by keeping the two Groups separate. The Sibling Group is a standard anthology connected to commercial book production; the Core Group consists of the efforts of someone collecting medical and alchemical texts in standard format. The LALME analysis casts further light on the Core Group. It turns out that, in spite of seemingly containing several different hands, they are all written in the same dialect. The language variant consists of several fairly standard features, including several nearly modern spellings, but there are also items with provincial distribution. The provincial spellings can be localized to Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, or Rutland by using the fit technique. This discovery confounded expectations, as I was prepared to analyse individual booklets and individual scribes separately. The results also mean that dialect can be added as a further defining feature for the Core Group and confirm Voigts’s recognition of these manu­scripts belonging together. What is more, it is quite possible that even though the Core Group seems to be copied by several different hands, all of the Middle English sections were in fact copied by a single person, and changes in handwriting can be explained by the practice of using different scripts for different languages. More generally, the LALME analysis supports a localization in London for both Groups. The Sibling as well as Core manu­scripts contain a number of features typical of Type III and IV of London English. This can be explained either by an origin in London or its vicinity, or that language was already partly standardized in the latter half of the fifteenth century. Based on the idea that was prevalent when LALME was compiled, one would expect to find Type IV

Dialect and Dialectology

213

Chancery forms almost exclusively in southern texts dating from after 1450. However, the data proved to be a mixture of mainly Type III and Type IV forms for both the Core and the Sibling Groups. The appearance of earlier London forms in manu­scripts from the 1450s and 1460s adds to the accumulating criticism towards Fisher, suggesting that he has exaggerated the homogeneity of the Chancery Standard. This study also helps to clarify the extent of bi- and trilingualism in the Groups. It reveals that in spite of their multilingual reputation, language mixing is fairly rare in both Groups. Multilingualism in the Sibling Group consists of monolingual Latin and nearly monolingual Middle English treatises. Switching between Latin and English occurs almost exclusively in manu­scriptlevel incipits and explicits. However, the texts contain Latinate terminology, which is frequently not glossed: this is a feature of the learned end of medical writing. The Core Group is more miscellaneous, but usually switching between languages occurs at the boundaries of texts in it as well. In any case, certain patterns did emerge in relation to inter- and intrasentential switching. The majority of switching is found in the domain of alchemy and in the text type of recipes. The greater amount of language mixing in alchemy may result from conventions being less well developed in the domain of alchemy, in which vernacular treatises only started to appear in the fifteenth century, than in the domain of medicine. There are also other things that deserve attention. The dialect of the Core Group should be studied in more detail and in the context of the dialects of medical and scientific texts. Based on this study alone, it is impossible to determine whether the identical dialect is due to geographical variation and local colouring, or a matter of register and connected to London and its vicinity. Another high priority would be a palaeographical analysis of the scribal hand(s) in the Core Group, as it would help to clarify whether the dialectal similarity results from the fact that they were, after all, copied by a single individual. An important breakthrough would be if someone were able to identify the hand in other documents as it would yield information on the origin and provenance of these booklets and codices. Palaeographical analysis could also provide more information on the Sibling Group. Identifying the hands of scribes other than Ebesham would help to clarify their connection to the London book trade. I will conclude with these two observations for future directions of research and the formula: much remains to be done. Having said that, I think the present study is fairly exhaustive in clarifying the relation of these manu­scripts to the commercial book market immediately before Caxton. In particular, I am confident that the detailed codicological work which I carried out during the

214

Chapter 6

months which I spent with the Core Group and the Sibling Group in repositories in London, Cambridge, Oxford, and Boston will provide a firm codicological foundation for scholars wishing to embark on a study of these two fascinating groups of manu­scripts.

Appendix

Full collation of Sloane 1118

Booklet A

Booklet A contents: –– Observations and recipes on alchemy, partly in Latin, partly in English; ff. 15r–26r. –– Alchemical verses for making King’es bath; f. 26v, Incipit: Herkenethe alle, that ben kynde.

216

Booklet B

Booklet B contents: –– Observations and recipes on alchemy, partly in Latin, partly in English; ff. 27–33.

Booklet C

Booklet C contents: –– Observations and recipes on alchemy, partly in Latin, partly in English; ff. 34–37.

Appendix

Full collation of Sloane 1118

217

Unit D Quires

Watermarks

Catchwords

Signatures

ff.38–45, 4(14-1), five empty leaves

scissors (a single sheet), pliers (a single sheet), Bull’s head with St. Andrew’s cross (half sheet)

f. 42r

partly overlapping with booklet C

Unit D contents: –– De lapide philosophico; ff. 37r–38v; Incipit: Audite, celi, que loquar; audiat terra verba oris mei. Spiritus ubi vult spirat. –– Observations and recipes on alchemy, partly in Latin, partly in English; ff. 39r–43r.

Booklet E

Booklet E contents: –– De occultacione lapidis; eTK number: 0511A; ff. 46-48; Incipit: Est lapis occultus, secreto fonte sepultus. –– Some divinations in Latin; f. 49; Incipit: Teneat quis in manu dextra quot grana voluerit.

218

–– Pseudo-Bacon: Speculum Alchymiae, eTK: 0888G, the marginal heading is: Opus Philosophicum, ff. 50-56; Incipit: Multipharie multisque modis loquebantur. –– Tractatulus de lapide philosophorum; f. 58; Incipit: audere secreta.

Booklet F

Booklet F (ff. 60–9) contents: –– Pseudo-Jābir: Liber Fornacum; eTK: 0252F; ff. 60-71; Incipit: Consideramus consideracione non fantastica. –– Alchemical notes, f. 72.

Appendix

Full collation of Sloane 1118

Booklet G

Booklet G contents: –– Pseudo-Jābir: De investigatione perfectionis; eTK: 0256A; ff. 73-82; Incipit: Consideravimus ex multis voluminibus. –– Alchemical recipes in English and Latin, f.82.

Booklet H

Booklet H contents: –– Gemma salutaris qui nascitur orbicularis; eTK: 0510M; ff. 84-87; Incipit: Et dicit quod medicina nostra debet elici ex illis corporibus, in quibus argenteum vinum magis continetur.

219

220

Appendix

Unit I

Unit I contents: –– Arnald of Villanova: Liber de secretis naturalis; eTK: 0678F; ff. 89–93; Incipit: Scito, fili, quod, in hoc libro loquar. –– Pseudo-Bacon: Speculum Alkamie; eTK: 00521; ff. 94-99; Incipit: Possem facere finem circa miracula de exemplis.

Booklet J

Booklet J contents: –– John of Rupescissa: The Book of Quintessence (English); eVK: 6694.00; ff. 100–102; Incipit: The prologe of oure hevene quinte essence. To seke the verray trewe prikke of profite, the whiche is incorruptible.

Full collation of Sloane 1118

221

–– Tractatus philosophorum, quem vocaverunt Thesaurum absconditum; ff. 105–106; Incipit: Nota quod per infrascriptam distillacionem in igne et sine igne. –– Ad faciendam limam perfectam es mercurio; f. 106v. –– John Dastin: Opus de elixir aquarum ad album; eTK: 0419L; ff. 107r–108r; Incipit: Dicit Ortolanus aquas minerales in hoc opere. –– John Dastin: Litera seu Epistola bona et preciosa, de operationibus hujus artis. ff. 108v–111r; Incipit: Reverenciam et salutem, amice, dilectissime.

Booklet K

Booklet K contents: –– Artephius: Ars Sintrillia; ff. 112r–113v; Incipit: Ubi aurum dedisti, aurum accipe.

222

Booklet L

Booklet L contents: –– Arnald of Villanova: Liber de secretis naturalis; eTK: 0678F; ff. 115–122; Incipit: Scito, fili, quod, in hoc libro loquar.

Booklet M

Booklet M contents: –– Pseudo-Lull: Epistola accurtacionis; eTK: 0296C; ff. 123–127; Incipit: In virtute sancte Trinitatis, etc. Cum ego Raymundus de Insula Majoricarum.

Appendix

Full collation of Sloane 1118

Booklet N

Booklet N contents: –– Ortolanus Martinus: Comm. Hermes, Emerald Tablet; eTK: 0813H; fols 128–34; Incipit: Laus honor virtus et gloria sit tibi.

Booklet O

Booklet O contents: –– Arnaldus Grecus: Exposiciones secundum Arnaldum Grecum super lapide philosophorum; eTK: 1565I; ff. 135-140; Incipit: Terra stat et est frigida et sicca.

223

224

Appendix

Booklet P

Booklet P contents: –– John Pauper: Breviloquium; eTK: 0811A; ff. 141–145; Incipit: Lapis philosophorum dicitur mineralis, quia de terra tollitur. –– John Pauper: Epistola; eTK: 1359G; ff. 146–7; Incipit: Reverenciam et salutem amice dilectissime, jam thalamum cordis mei vobis aperio.

Works Cited Manu­script and Archival Sources Boston, Collectanea medica, Boston Medical Library, Francis  A. Countway Library of Medicine, MS Ballard 19 Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 336/725 Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.1.77 London, British Library, MS Additional 5467 —— , MS Additional 19674 —— , MS Harley 1735 —— , MS Sloane 1118 —— , MS Sloane 1313 —— , MS Sloane 2320 —— , MS Sloane 2567 —— , MS Sloane 2948 —— , MS Sloane 3566 London, Wellcome Library, MS 784 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS e Musaeo 155 —— , MS Rawlinson C.815 Tokyo, Takamiya Collection, MS 33 (now available on long-term deposit at Yale, Beinecke Library)

Primary Sources Agnus Castus: A  Middle English Herbal Reconstructed from Various Manu­scripts, ed. by Gösta Brodin, Essays and Studies on English Language and Literature, 6 (Uppsala: Lundequist, 1950) Bacon, Roger, Fratris Rogeri Bacon De retardatione accidentium senectutis cum aliis opus­culis De rebus medicinalibus, ed. by Andrew G. Little and Edward Withington (Meisen­ heim: Anton Hain, 1968) The Book of Secrets of Albertus Magnus of the Virtues of Herbs, Stones and Certain Beasts, ed. by Michael R. Best and Frank H. Brightman (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973) The Fifty Earliest English Wills in the Court of Probate, London, A.D. 1387–1439, ed. by Frederick J. Furnivall, Early English Texts Society, o.s., 78 (London: Trübner, 1882)

226

Works Cited

John Trevisa’s Translation of the Polychronicon of Ranulph Higden, Book VI: An Edition Based on British Library MS Cotton Tiberius D. VII, ed. by Ronald Waldron (Heidel­ berg: Winter, 2004) ‘The Middle English Contents of a Fifteenth-Century Medical Handbook’, ed. by Martha Powell Harley, Medi­evalia, 8 (1982), 171–88 On the Properties of Things: John Trevisa’s Translation of Bartholomaeus Anglicus, ‘De pro­ prietatibus rerum’, ed. by M. C. Seymour, 3 vols (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press, 1975–88) Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, ed. by Norman Davis, Early English Texts Series, s.s., 21–22, 3 vols in 2 pts (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press, 1971–76) Secretum secretorum: Nine English Versions, ed. by Mahmoud Manzalaoui, Early English Texts Society, o.s., 276 (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press, 1977) Il “Testamentum” alchemico attribuito a Raimondo Lullo: edizione del testo latino e cata­ lano dal manoscritto Oxford, Corpus Christi College, 244, ed. by Michela Pereira and Barbara Spaggiari (Firenze: Galluzzo, 1999) Theatrum Chymicum, ed. by Lazarus Zetzner, 6 vols (Oberursel: [n. pub.], 1602–61) William Caxton’s Dialogues in French and English, ed. by Henry Bradley, Early English Texts Society, e.s., 79 (London, 1900)

Secondary Studies Alonso Almeida, Francisco, and Ruth Carroll, ‘A New Proposal for the Classification of Middle English Medical Texts’, in Voices on the Past: Studies in Old and Middle English Language and Literature, ed. by Alicia Rodríguez Álvarez and Francisco Alonso Almeida (A Coruña: NetBiblo, 2004), pp. 21–33 Ayoub, Lois Jean, ‘John Crophill’s Books: An Edition of British Library MS Harley 1735’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Uni­ver­sity of Toronto, 1994) Ballard, James F., A Catalogue of Medi­eval and Renaissance Manu­scripts and Incunabula in the Boston Medical Library (Boston: Boston Medical Library, 1944) Benskin, Michael, ‘Chancery Standard’, in New Perspectives on English Historical Linguis­ tics, ed. by Christian Kay, Carole Hough, and Irené Wotherspoon, 2 vols (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2004), ii, pp. 1–40 —— , ‘The “Fit” -Technique Explained’, in Regionalism in Late Medi­eval Manu­scripts and Texts, ed. by Felicity Riddy (Cambridge: Brewer, 1991), pp. 9–26 —— , ‘The Letters and in Later Middle English, and Some Related Matters’, Journal of the Society of Archivists, 1, no. 7 (1982), 13–30 —— , ‘Some New Perspectives on the Origin of Standard Written English’, in Dialect and Standard Language in the English, German and Norwegian Language Areas, ed. by J. A. van Leuvensteijn and J. B. Berns (Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, 1992), pp. 71–101 Biber, Douglas, Variation across Speech and Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1988)

Works Cited

227

Blagden, Cyprian, The Stationers’ Company: A  History, 1403–1959 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni­ver­sity Press, 1960) Blake, N. F., A History of the English Language (London: Macmillan, 1996) Briquet, Charles-Moïse, Les filigranes: dictionnaire historique des Marques du Papier dès leur apparition vers 1282 jusqu’en 1600 (Amsterdam: Paper Publications Society, 1968) Britton, Derek, ‘Henry Machyn, Axel Wijk, and the Case of the Wrong Riding: The South-West Yorkshire Character of the Language of Machyn’s Diary’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 101 (2000), 571–96 Brown, Peter, ‘The Seven Planets’, in Popular and Practical Science of Medi­eval England, ed. by Lister M. Matheson (East Lansing: Colleagues, 1994), pp. 3–23 Cappelli, Adriano, ed., Lexicon abbreviaturarum: Dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane, 6th edn (Milan: Ulrico Hoepli, 1990 [1899]) Carey, Hilary M., ‘Medi­eval Latin Astrology and the Cycles of Life: William English and English Medicine in Cambridge, Trinity College MS O.5.26’, in Astro-Medicine: Astrology and Medicine, East and West, ed. by Anna Akasoy, Charles Burnett, and Ronit Yoeli-Tlalim (Florence: Galluzo, 2008), pp. 33–74 Carroll, Ruth, ‘The Middle English Recipe as a Text-Type’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 100 (1999), 27–42 —— , ‘Middle English Recipes: Vernacularisation of a Text-Type’, in Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medi­eval English, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen and Päivi Pahta (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2004), pp. 174–96 Chambers, R. W., and Marjorie Daunt, A Book of London English, 1384–1425 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1931) Christianson, C. Paul, ‘Evidence for the Study of London’s Late Medi­eval Manu­scriptBook Trade’, in Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475, ed. by Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ ver­ sity Press, 1989), pp. 87–108 —— , ‘The Rise of London’s Book-Trade’, in The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, ed. by Lotte Hellinga and J.  B. Trapp (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1999), pp. 128–47 Clark, Charles West, The Zodiac Man in Medi­eval Medical Astrology (Boulder: Uni­ver­sity of Colorado, 1979) Clulee, Nicholas H., John Dee’s Natural Philosophy: Between Science and Religion (Lon­ don: Routledge, 1988) Collette, Carolyn, and Harold Garrett-Goodyear, The Later Middle Ages: A Sourcebook (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011) Collins, David J., ‘Albertus, or Magic, Natural Philosophy, and Religious Reform in the Late Magnus Magus? Middle Ages’, Renaissance Quarterly, 63 (2010), 1–44 Connolly, Margaret, John Shirley: Book Production and the Noble Household in FifteenthCentury England (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998) Da Rold, Orietta, ‘Materials’, in The Production of Books in England, 1350–1500, ed. by Alexandra Gillespie and Daniel Wakelin (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2011), pp. 12–33

228

Works Cited

Davies, Owen, Cunning-Folk: Popular Magic in English History (London: Hambledon, 2003) Davis, Norman, ‘The Language of Two Brothers in the Fifteenth Century’, in Five Hundred Years of Words and Sounds: A Festschrift for Eric Dobson, ed. by Eric G. Stanley and Douglas Gray (Cambridge: Brewer, 1983), pp. 23–28 DeVun, Leah, Prophecy, Alchemy, and the End of Time: John of Rupescissa in the Late Middle Ages (New York: Columbia Uni­ver­sity Press, 2009) Doyle, A. I., ‘More Light on John Shirley’, Medium Aevum, 30 (1961), 93–101 —— , ‘Recent Directions in Medi­eval Manu­script Study’, in New Directions in Later Medi­eval Manu­script Studies, ed. by Derek Pearsall (Bury St Edmunds: York Medi­eval Press, 2000), pp. 1–14 —— , ‘The Work of a Late-Fifteenth Century English Scribe, William Ebesham’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Manchester, 39 (1956), 298–325 Doyle, A. I., and Malcolm B. Parkes, ‘The Production of Copies of Canterbury Tales and the Confessio Amantis in the Early Fifteenth Century’, Medi­eval Scribes, Manu­scripts, and Libraries: Essays Presented to N.  R. Ker, ed. by Neil Ker, Malcolm Beckwith Parkes, and Andrew G. Watson (London: Scolar, 1978), pp. 163–210 Driver, Martha W., The Image in Print: Book Illustration in Late Medi­eval England and Its Sources (London: British Library, 2004) Driver, Martha W., and Michael Orr, ‘Decorating and Illustrating the Page’, in The Production of Books in England, 1350–1500, ed. by Alexandra Gillespie and Daniel Wakelin (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2011), pp. 104–28 Ekwall, Eilert, ‘Ortsnamenforschung ein Hilfsmittel für das engl. SprachgeschichteStudium’, Germanisch-romanischen Monatsschrift, 5 (1913), 592–608 —— , Studies on the Population of Medi­eval London (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1956) Emden, Alfred B., A Biographical Register of the Uni­ver­sity of Cambridge to 1500 (Cam­ bridge: Cambridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1963) —— , A Biographical Register of the Uni­ver­sity of Oxford to ad 1500 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958) Everest, Carol A., and M. Teresa Tavormina, ‘On Tarrying the Accidents of Age (De re­ tarda­tione accidentium senectutis)’, in Sex, Aging, & Death in a Medi­eval Medical Com­ pendium: Trinity College Cambridge MS R.14.52. Its Texts, Language, and Scribe, ed. by M. Teresa Tavormina, 2 vols (Tempe: Arizona Center for Medi­eval and Renaissance Studies, 2006), i, 133–247 Fisher, John H., ‘Chancery and the Emergence of Standard Written English in the Fif­ teenth Century’, Speculum, 52 (1977), 870–99 —— , ‘Chancery Standard and Modern Written English’, Journal of the Society of Archivists, 6 (1979), 136–44 —— , The Emergence of Standard English (Lexington: Uni­ver­sity Press of Kentucky, 1996) —— , ‘A Language Policy for Lancastrian England’, Publications of the Modern Language Society of America, 107 (1992), 1168–80 Fisher, John H., Malcolm Richardson, and Jane  L. Fisher, An Anthology of Chancery English (Knoxville: Uni­ver­sity of Tennesee Press, 1984)

Works Cited

229

Geoghegan, D., ‘A Licence of Henry VI to Practise Alchemy’, in Alchemy and Early Modern Chemistry: Papers from Ambix, ed. by Allen G. Debus (Philadelphia: Mills, 1957; repr. 2004), pp. 10–17 Getz, Faye, Medicine in the Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton Uni­ver­sity Press, 1998) Glacken, Clarence J., Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century (Berkeley: Uni­ver­sity of California Press, 2011) Glare, P. G. W., ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary, 2nd edn, 2 vols (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press, 2012) Görlach, Manfred, ‘Text-Types and Language History: The Cookery Recipe’, in History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, ed. by Matti Rissanen and others (Berlin: Gruyter, 1992), pp. 736–61 Green, Monica, ‘The Possibilities of Literacy and the Limits of Reading: Women and the Gendering of Medical Literacy’, in Women’s Healthcare in the Medi­eval West, ed. by Monica Green (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), pp. 1–76 Hall, Alaric, Elves in Anglo-Saxon England: Matters of Belief, Health, Gender and Identity (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2007) Hall, Hubert, A Formula Book of English Official Historical Documents, 2 pts (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1908–09) Hamel, Christopher F. R. De, ‘Reflexions on the Trade in Books of Hours at Ghent and Bruges’, in Manu­scripts in the Fifty Years after the Invention of Printing, ed. by J.  B. Trapp (London: Warburg Institute, 1983), pp. 29–33 Hanna, Ralph, III, ‘A Book Contract and its “Set Text”: John Forbor’s Psalter Appendix: The Slaithwaite Indenture: A  Transcription, Translation and Notes’, in Introducing English Medi­eval Book History: Manu­scripts, their Producers and their Readers, ed. by Ralph Hanna (Liverpool: Liverpool Uni­ver­sity Press, 2013) —— , ‘Booklets in Medi­eval Manu­scripts: Further Considerations’, Studies in Bibliography, 39 (1986), 100–11 Hargreaves, Henry, ‘Some Problems in Indexing Middle English Recipes’, in Middle English Prose: Essays on Biographical Problems, ed. by A.  S.  G. Edwards and Derek Pearsall (New York: Garland, 1981), pp. 91–113 Harley, Martha P., ‘The Middle English Contents of a Fifteenth-Century Medical Hand­ book’, Mediaevalia, 8 (1982), 171–88 Harris, Kate, ‘Patrons, Buyers and Owners: The Evidence for Ownership, and the Role of Book Owners in Book Production and the Book Trade’, in Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475, ed. by Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall (Cam­ bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1989), pp. 163–200 Heawood, Edward, ‘Sources of Early English Paper-Supply’, The Library, 10 (1929), 282–307 Heinrich, Fritz, Ein mittelenglisches Medicinbuch (Halle: Niemeyer, 1896) Hellinga, Lotte, ‘Four Book Auctions of the Fifteenth Century’, in The Medi­eval Book: Glosses from Friends & Colleagues of Christopher De Hamel, ed. by James H. Marrow, Richard A. Linenthel and William Noel (Houten: Hes & De Graaf, 2010), pp. 261–69

230

Works Cited

—— , ‘Manu­scripts in the Hands of Printers’, in Manu­scripts in the Fifty Years after the In­vention of Printing, ed. by Joseph  B. Trapp (London: Warburg Institute, 1983), pp. 3–11 Honkapohja, Alpo, ‘Multilingualism in Trinity College Cam­bridge Manu­script O.1.77’, in Foreign Influences on Medi­eval English, ed. by Jacek Fisiak and Magdalena Bator (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2011), pp. 25–45 —— , ‘The Trinity Seven Planets’, Scholarly Editing: The Annual of the Association for Documentary Editing, 34 (2013) [accessed 29 April 2016] Hope, Jonathan, ‘Rats, Bats, Sparrows and Dogs: Biology, Linguistics and the Nature of Standard English’, in The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800, ed. by Laura Wright (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2000), pp. 49–56 Horner, Patrick, A Handlist of Manu­scripts Containing Middle English Prose in the Digby Collection, Bodleian Library, Oxford (Cam­bridge: Brewer, 1986) Horobin, Simon, The Language of the Chaucer Tradition (Cam­bridge: Brewer, 2003) Horobin, Simon, and Jeremy Smith, An Introduction to Middle English (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press, 2002) Horrox, Rosemary, The Black Death (Manchester: Manchester Uni­ver­sity Press, 1994) Hughes, Jonathan, Arthurian Myths and Alchemy: The Kingship of Edward IV (Stroud: Sutton, 2002) Hunt, Tony, ‘Code-Switching in Medical Texts’, in Multilingualism in Later Medi­eval Britain, ed. by David Trotter (Cam­bridge: Brewer, 2000), pp. 131–47 —— , ‘Languages of Medical Writing’, in Medi­eval and Early Modern Literature, Science and Medicine, ed. by Rachel Falconer and Denis Renevey (Tübingen: Narr, 2013), pp. 79–102 Ingham, Richard, ‘Code-Switching in the Later Medi­eval English Lay Subsidy Rolls’, in Code-Switching in Early English, ed. by Herbert Schendl and Laura Wright (Berlin: Gruyter, 2011), pp. 95–114 —— , ‘Middle English and Anglo-Norman in Contact’, Bulletin de l’Association des Médiévistes Anglicistes de l’Enseignement Supérieur, 81 (2012), 1–23 —— , The Transmission of Anglo-Norman: Language History and Language Acquisition (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2012) Jacquart, Danielle, ‘Medical Scholasticism’, in Western Medical Thought from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, ed. by Mirko D. Grmek (Cam­bridge, MA: Harvard Uni­ver­sity Press, 1998), pp. 197–240 James, Montague Rhodes, A  Descriptive Catalogue of the Manu­scripts in the Library of Gonville and Caius College (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1907) —— , The Western Manu­scripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cam­bridge: A Descriptive Catalogue (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1900) Jasin, Joanna, ‘A Critical Edition of the Middle English Liber uricrisiarum in Wellcome MS 225’ (unpublished doctoral dissertaion, Tulane Uni­ver­sity, 1983) Jones, Claire, ‘Discourse Communities and Medical Texts’, in Medical Scientific Writing in Late Medi­eval English, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen and Päivi Pahta (Cam­bridge: Cam­ bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2004), pp. 23–36

Works Cited

231

Jones, Peter Murray, ‘Four Middle English Translations of John of Arderne’, in Latin and Vernacular: Studies in Late-Medi­eval Texts and Manu­scripts, ed. by A. J. Minnis (Cam­ bridge: Brewer, 1989), pp. 61–89 —— , ‘Information and Science’, in Fifteenth-Century Attitudes: Perceptions of Society in Late Medi­eval England, ed. by Rosemary Horrox (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1994), pp. 97–11 Kaislaniemi, Samuli, ‘Visual Aspects of Code-Switching in Early Modern English Manu­ script Letters and Printed Tracts’, in Verbal and Visual Com­muni­cation in Early English Texts, ed. by Matti Peikola and others (Turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming) Kassell, Lauren, ‘Reading for the Philosophers’ Stone’, in Books and the Sciences in History, ed. by Marina Frasca-Spada and Nick Jardine (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2000), pp. 132–50 Kastovsky, Dieter, ‘Semantics and Vocabulary’, in The Cam­bridge History of the English Language, ed. by Richard Hogg (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1992), pp. 290–408 Keene, Derek, ‘Metropolitan Values: Migration, Mobility and Cultural Norms, London 1100–1700’, in The Development of Standard English 1300–1800, ed. by Laura Wright (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2000), pp. 93–114 König, Eberhart, ‘The Influence of the Invention of Printing on the Development of German Illumination’, in Manu­scripts in the Fifty Years after the Invention of Printing, ed. by J. B. Trapp (London: Warburg Institute, 1983), pp. 85–96 Kwakkel, Erik, ‘Commercial Organization and Economic Innovation’, in The Production of Books in England, 1350–1500, ed. by Alexandra Gillespie and Daniel Wakelin (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2011) —— , ‘A New Type of Book for a New Type of Reader: The Emergence of Paper in Ver­ nacular Book Production’, in The History of the Book in the West: 400 AD–1455, ed. by Jane Robinson and Pamela Roberts (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2010 [2003]), pp. 409–38 Laing, Margaret, ‘Early Middle English – the East-West Divide’, in Placing Middle English in Context, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen and others (Berlin: Gruyter, 2000), pp. 97–124 Lass, Roger, ‘Ut custodiant litteras: Editions, Corpora and Witnesshood’, in Methods and Data in English Historical Dialectology, ed. by Marina Dossena and Roger Lass (Bern: Lang, 2004), pp. 21–48 Linden, Stanton J., Darke Hierogliphicks: Alchemy in English Literature from Chaucer to the Restoration (Kentucky: Uni­ver­sity Press of Kentucky, 1996) Lyall, Roderick J., ‘Materials: The Paper Revolution’, in Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475, ed. by Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall (Cam­bridge: Cam­ bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1989), pp. 11–30 Machan, Tim William, ‘The Visual Pragmatics of Code-Switching in Late Middle English Literature’, in Code-Switching in Early English, ed. by Herbert Schendl and Laura Wright (Berlin: Gruyter, 2011), pp. 303–33 Macray, W. D., Catalogi codicum manu­scriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae: partis quintae, fasciculus secundus (London: MacMillan, 1878)

232

Works Cited

Mäkinen, Martti, Between Herbals Et Alia: Intertextuality in Medi­eval English Herbal (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni­ver­sity of Helsinki, 2006) Manzalaoui, Mahmoud, ‘Chaucer and Science’, in Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. by Derek Brewer (London: Bell, 1974), pp. 224–61 Matheson, Lister M., ‘The Dialect of the Hammond Scribe’, in Sex, Aging, & Death in a Medi­eval Medical Compendium: Trinity College Cam­bridge MS R.14.52. Its Texts, Language, and Scribe, ed. by M. Teresa Tavormina (Tempe: Arizona Center for Medi­ eval and Renaissance Studies, 2006), pp. 65–93 —— , ‘John of Burgundy: Treatises on Plague’, in Sex, Aging, & Death in a Medi­eval Medical Compendium: Trinity College Cam­bridge R.14.52. Its Texts, Language, and Scribe, ed. by M. Teresa Tavormina (Tempe: Arizona Center for Medi­eval and Renais­ sance Studies, 2006), pp. 569–602 —— , ‘Medecin sans frontieres? The European Dissemination of John of Burgundy’s Plague Treatise’, ANQ, 18 (2005), 17–28 McIntosh, Angus, ‘The Analysis of Written Middle English’, in Middle English Dialectology: Essays on Some Principles and Problems, ed. by Margaret Laing (Aberdeen: Aberdeen Uni­ver­sity Press, 1989 [1956]), pp. 1–21 —— , ‘Present Indicative Plural Forms in the Later Middle English of the North Midlands’, in Middle English Dialectology: Essys on Some Principles and Problems, ed. by Angus McIntosh, Michael L. Samuels, and Margaret Laing (Aberdeen: Aberdeen Uni­ver­sity Press, 1989 [1983]), pp. 116–22 McIntosh, Angus, and others, A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English (Aberdeen: Aberdeen Uni­ver­sity Press, 1986) Meale, Carol M., ‘Patrons, Buyers and Owners: Book Production and Social Status’, in Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475, ed. by Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1989), pp. 201–38 Meecham-Jones, Simon, ‘“Gadryng Togedre of Medecyne in the Partye of Cyrurgerie”: Strategies of Code-Switching in the Middle English Translations of Chauliac’s Chir­ urgia Magna’, in Code-Switching in Early English, ed. by Herbert Schendl and Laura Wright (Berlin: Gruyter, 2011) Milroy, James, ‘Middle English Dialectology’, in Cam­bridge History of the English Lan­ guage, ed. by Norman Blake, 2 vols (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1992), ii, 156–206 Milroy, James, and Leslie Milroy, Authority in Language: Investigating Language Pre­ scription and Standardisation (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985) —— , Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English, 3rd edn (London: Routledge, 1999) Mooney, Linne R., ‘Chaucer’s Scribe’, Speculum, 81 (2006), 97–138 —— , ‘Locating Scribal Activity in Late-Medi­eval London’, in Design and Distribution of Late Medi­eval Manu­scripts in England, ed. by Margaret Connolly and Linne  R. Mooney (Woodbridge: York Medi­eval Press, 2008), pp. 183–204 —— , ‘Professional Scribes? Identifying English Scribes Who Had a Hand in More Than One Manu­script’, in New Directions in Later Medi­eval Manu­script Studies, ed. by Derek Pearsall (Woodbridge: York Medi­eval Press, 2000), pp. 131–42

Works Cited

233

—— , ‘Scribes and Booklets of Trinity College, Cam­bridge, Manu­scripts R.3.19 and R.3.21’, in Middle English Poetry: Texts and Traditions, ed. by Alastair J. Minnis (York: York Medi­eval Press, 2001), pp. 241–66 Mooney, Linne R., and Lister M. Matheson, ‘The Beryn Scribe and his Texts: Evidence for Multiple-Copy Production of Manu­scripts in Fifteenth-Century England’, The Library, 7th ser., 4 (2003), 347–70 Moorat, S. A. J., Catalogue of Western Manu­scripts on Medicine and Science in the Wellcome Historical Medical Library: MSS  Written before 1650 A.D (London: Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 1962) Moore, Samuel, Sanford Brown Meech, and Harold Whitehall, Middle English Dialect Characteristics and Dialect Boundaries: Preliminary Report of an Investigation Based Exclusively on Localized Texts and Documents (Ann Arbor: Uni­ver­sity of Michigan Press, 1935) Nevalainen, Terttu, and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, ‘Standardisation’, in A History of the English Language, ed. by Richard Hogg and David Denison (Cam­bridge: Cam­ bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2006), pp. 271–311 Nolcken, Christina von, The Middle English Translation of ‘Rosarium theologie’ (Heidel­ berg: Winter, 1979) Norri, Juhani, ‘Entrances and Exits in English Medical Vocabulary’, in Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medi­eval English, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen and Päivi Pahta (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2004), pp. 100–43 —— , Names of Sicknesses in English, 1400–1550: An Exploration of the Lexical Field (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1992) North, John D., Cosmos: An Illustrated History of Astronomy and Cosmology (Chicago: Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2008) Nyström, Eva, ‘Codicological Crossover: The Merging of the Manu­script and Print’, in Manu­script Studies and Codicology: Theory and Practice (= Studia Neophilologica, 86 (2014)), pp. 112–33 Oakden, James P., Alliterative Poetry in Middle English: The Dialectal and Metrical Survey, 2 vols (Manchester: Manchester Uni­ver­sity Press, 1930–35) Page, Sophie, Astrology in Medi­eval Manu­scripts (Toronto: Uni­ver­sity of Toronto Press, 2002) —— , Magic in Medi­eval Manu­scripts (London: British Library, 2004) Pahta, Päivi, ‘Code-Switching in Medi­eval Medical Writing’, in Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medi­eval English, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen and Päivi Pahta (Cam­ bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2004), pp. 73–99 —— , ‘On Structures of Code-Switching in Medical Texts from Medi­eval England’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 104 (2003), 197–210 Pahta, Päivi, and Arja Nurmi, ‘Social Stratification and Patterns of Code-Switching in Early English Letters’, Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication (2004), 417–56 —— , ‘“What We Do Con Amore”: Structures of Code-Switching in Eighteenth-Century Personal Letters: New Insights into Late Modern English’, in ‘Of Varying Language

234

Works Cited

and Opposing Creed’, ed. by Javier Pérez-Guerra and others (Bern: Lang, 2007), pp. 401–20 Pahta, Päivi, and Irma Taavitsainen, ‘Vernacularisation of Scientific and Medical Writing in Its Sociohistorical Context’, in Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medi­eval English, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen and Päivi Pahta (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2004), pp. 1–18 Paraviciani Bagliani, Agostino, ‘Ruggero Bacone autore del De retardatione accidentium senectutis?’, Studi Medi­evali, 3 (1987), 707–28 Parkes, Malcolm B., English Cursive Book Hands, 1250–1500 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969) Partridge, Stephen, ‘Designing the Page’, in The Production of Books in England, 1350– 1500, ed. by Alexandra Gillespie and Daniel Wakelin (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ ver­sity Press, 2011), pp. 70–103 Pereira, Michela, The Alchemical Corpus Attributed to Raymond Lull, Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts (London: Warburg Institute, 1989) —— , ‘Alchemy and the Use of Vernacular Languages in the Late Middle Ages’, Speculum, 74 (1999), 336–56 —— , ‘Mater medicinarum: English Physicians and the Alchemical Elixir in the Fifteenth Century’, in Medicine from the Black Death to the French Disease, ed. by Roger French and others (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), pp. 26–52 Piccard, Gerhard. Wasserzeichnen ii (Stuttgart: [n. pub.], 1966) Pollard, Graham, ‘The Pecia System in the Medi­eval Universities’, in Medi­eval Scribes, Manu­scripts & Libraries: Essays Presented to N.R. Ker, ed. by Malcolm B. Parkes and Andrew G. Watson (London: Scolar, 1978), pp. 145–61 Principe, Lawrence M., The Secrets of Alchemy (Chicago: Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, 2013) Richardson, Malcolm, ‘Henry V, the English Chancery, and Chancery English’, Speculum, 55 (1980), 726–50 Rigg, A.  G., A  Glastonbury Miscellany of the Fifteenth Century: A  Descriptive Index of Trinity College, Cam­bridge, MS.O.9.38 (London: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press, 1968) Robbins, Rossell Hope, ‘Medical Manu­scripts in Middle English’, Speculum, 45 (1970), 393–415 Roberts, Gareth, The Mirror of Alchemy: Alchemical Ideas and Images in Manu­scripts and Books from Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century (London: British Library, 1994) Roberts, Jane, Guide to Scripts Used in English Writings up to 1500 (London: British Library, 2005) Robinson, P.  R., ‘The “Booklet”: A Self-Contained Unit in Composite Manu­scripts’, Codi­cologica, 3 (1980), 46–69 Rogos, Justyna, ‘Isles of Systemacity in the Sea of Prodigality? Non-Alphabetic Elements in Manu­scripts of Chaucer’s “Man of Law’s Tale”’ (2012) [accessed 19 April 2016] Romaine, Suzanne, Bilingualism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995)

Works Cited

235

Rundle, David, ‘English Books and the Continent’, in The Production of Books in England, 1350–1500, ed. by Alexandra Gillespie and Daniel Wakelin (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2011), pp. 276–91 Samuels, Michael L., ‘Some Applications of Middle English Dialectology’, in Middle English Dialectology: Essays on Some Principles and Problems, ed. by Angus McIntosh, Michael L. Samuels, and Margaret Laing (Aberdeen: Aberdeen Uni­ver­sity Press, 1989 [1963]), pp. 64–80 —— , ‘Spelling and Dialect in the Late and Post-Middle English Periods’, in The English of Chaucer and his Contemporaries, ed. by Jeremy Smith (Aberdeen: Aberdeen Uni­ver­ sity Press, 1981), pp. 43–54 Schendl, Herbert, ‘Linguistic Aspects of Code-Switching in Medi­eval English Texts’, in Multilingualism in Later Medi­eval Britain, ed. by David Trotter (Cam­bridge: Brewer, 2000), pp. 77–92 —— , ‘Mixed-Language Texts as Data and Evidence in English Historical Linguistics’, in Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective, ed. by Donka Minkova and Robert P. Stockwell (Berlin: Gruyter, 2002), pp. 51–78 —— , ‘William Harvey’s Prelectiones anatomie universalis (1616): Code-Switching in Early Modern English Lecture Notes’, Brno Studies in English, 35 (2009), 185–98 Schnell, Bernhard, ‘Prolegomena to a History of Medi­eval German Medical Literature: The Twelfth Century’, in Manu­script Sources of Medi­eval Medicine, ed. by Margaret Rose Schleissner (London: Garland, 1995), pp. 3–16 Studer-Joho, Nicole, Diffusion and Change in Early Middle English: Methodological and Theoretical Implications from the LAEME Corpus of Tagged Texts (Tübingen: Narr, 2014) Suhr, Carla, Publishing for the Masses: Early Modern English Witchcraft Pamphlets, Mémoires de la Sociéte Néophilologique de Helsinki, 83 (Helsinki: Société Néo­ philo­logique, 2011) Taavitsainen, Irma, Middle English Lunaries: A Study of the Genre, Memoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 47 (Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 1988) —— , ‘Scientific Language and Spelling Standardisation’, in The Development of Standard English 1300–1800, ed. by Laura Wright (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2000), pp. 131–54 —— , ‘Scriptorial “House-Styles” and Discourse Communities’, in Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medi­eval English, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen and Päivi Pahta (Cam­ bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2004), pp. 209–40 —— , ‘Standardisation, House Styles, and the Scope of Variation’, in Rethinking Middle English: Linguistic and Literary Approaches, ed. by Nikolaus Ritt and Herbert Schendl (Frankfurt: Peter Langa, 2005), pp. 89–109 —— , ‘Transferring Classical Discourse Conventions into the Vernacular’, in Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medi­eval English, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen and Päivi Pahta (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2004), pp. 37–72 Taavitsainen, Irma, and Päivi Pahta, ‘The Corpus of Early English Medical Writing (1375–1800) — a Register-Specific Diachronic Corpus for Studying the History of

236

Works Cited

Scientific Writing’, in Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English: Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data (Helsinki: Research Unit for the Study of Variation, Contacts and Change in English, 2013) [accessed 24 November 2015] Taavitsainen, Irma, Päivi Pahta, and Martti Mäkinen, Middle English Medical Texts, CD-ROM (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2005) Takamiya, Toshiyuki, ‘A Handlist of Western Medi­eval Manu­scripts in the Takamiya Collec­tion’, in The Medi­eval Book: Glosses from Friends & Colleagues of Christopher De Hamel, ed. by James H. Marrow, Richard A. Linenthel and William Noel (Houten: Hes & De Graaf Publishers, 2010), pp. 421–40 Talbot, Charles H., and Eugene Ashby Hammond, The Medical Practitioners in Medi­eval England: A  Biographical Register (London: Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 1965) Tavormina, M. Teresa, ‘Roger Bacon: Two Extracts on the Prolongation of Life’, in Sex, Aging, & Death in a Medi­eval Medical Compendium: Trinity College Cam­bridge MS R.14.52. Its Texts, Language, and Scribe, ed. by M. Teresa Tavormina, 2 vols (Tempe: Arizona Center for Medi­eval and Renaissance Studies, 2006), i, 327–72 —— , ‘The Twenty-Jordan Series: An Illustrated Middle English Uroscopy Text’, ANQ, 18 (2005), 40–64 Temkin, Owsei, Galenism: Rise and Decline of a Medical Philosophy (Ithaca: Cornell Uni­ ver­sity Press, 1973) Thomason, Sarah G., Language Contact (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Uni­ver­sity Press, 2001) Venn, John, Alumni Cantabrigienses: A Biographical List of All Known Students, Graduates and Holders of Office at the Uni­ver­sity of Cam­bridge, from the Earliest Time to 1900, 2 pts in 10 vols (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1922–54) Voigts, Linda Ehrsam, ‘The Character of the Carecter: Ambiguous Sigils in Scientific and Medical Texts’, in Latin and Vernacular: Studies in Late-Medi­eval Texts and Manu­ scripts, ed. by Alastair J. Minnis (Cam­bridge: Brewer, 1989), pp. 91–109 —— , ‘A Doctor and his Books: The Manu­scripts of Roger Marchall (d. 1477)’, in New Science Out of Old Books: Studies in Manu­scripts and Early Printed Books in Honour of A. I. Doyle, ed. by Richard Beadle and A. J. Piper (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1995), pp. 249–314 —— , ‘The Golden Table of Pythagoras’, in Popular and Practical Science of Medi­eval England, ed. by Lister M. Matheson (East Lansing: Colleagues Press, 1994), pp. 123–40 —— , ‘The Master of the King’s Stillatories’, in The Lancastrian Court: Proceedings of the 2001 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. by Jenny Stratford (Donington: Shaun Tyas, 2003), pp. 233–52 —— , ‘Medical Prose’, in Middle English Prose: A  Critical Guide to Major Authors and Genres, ed. by A. S. G. Edwards (New Brunswick: Rutgers, 1984), pp. 315–35 —— , ‘Scientific and Medical Books’, in Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475 (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 1989), pp. 345–402

Works Cited

237

—— , ‘The “Sloane Group”: Related Scientific and Medical Manu­scripts from the Fifteenth Century in the Sloane Collection’, The British Library Journal, 16 (1990), 26–57 —— , ‘What’s the Word? Bilingualism in Late-Medi­eval England’, Speculum, 71 (1996), 813–26 Waldron, Ronald, ‘Dialect Aspects of Manu­scripts of Trevisa’s Translation of the Poly­ chronicon’, in Regionalism in Late Medi­eval Manu­scripts and Texts: Essays Celebrating the Publication of a Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English, ed. by Felicity Riddy (Bury St. Edmunds: Brewer, 1991), pp. 67–87 Walsh, John A., and Edd Hooper Wallace, ‘The Liberty of Invention: Alchemical Dis­ course and Information Technology Standardization’, Literary & Linguistic Com­ puting, 27 (2012), 55–79 Wenzel, Siegfried, Macaronic Sermons: Bilingualism and Preaching in Late-Medi­eval England (Ann Arbor: Uni­ver­sity of Michigan Press, 1994) Williams, Steven J., ‘Roger Bacon and his Edition of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Secretum Secretorum’, Speculum, 69 (1997), 57–73 Wright, Laura, ‘About the Evolution of Standard English’, in Doubt Wisely: Papers in Honour of E. G. Stanley, ed. by M. J. Toswell and E. M. Tyler (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 99–115 —— , ‘The Contact Origins of Standard English’, in English as a Contact Language (Cam­ bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2013), pp. 58–74 —— , ‘Introduction’, in The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800, ed. by Laura Wright (Cam­bridge: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, 2000), pp. 1–8 —— , ‘On the Writing of the History of Standard English’, in English Historical Linguistics: 1992, ed. by Francisco Fernández, Miguel Fuster, and Juan José Calvo (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1994), pp. 105–15 —— , ‘On Variation in Medi­eval Mixed-Language Business Writing’, in Code-Switching in Early English, ed. by Herbert Schendl and Laura Wright (Berlin: Gruyter, 2011), pp. 191–218

238

Works Cited

Online Resources AND = The Anglo- Norman Dictionary (part of the Anglo-Norman Hub) Anglo-Norman Hub [accessed 29 April 2016] The British National Corpus, Version 3 (BNC XML Edition, 2007) [accessed 29 April 2016] Burnley, David, and Alison Wiggins, The Auchinleck Manu­script (National Library of Scotland, 2003). [accessed 29 April 2016] eTK = A digital resource based on Lynn Thorndike and Pearl Kibre, A Catalogue of Incipits of Mediaeval Scientific Writings in Latin (Cam­bridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1963) (and supplements) [accessed 29 Sept­ember 2016] eVK = (2014) An expanded and revised version of Linda Ehrsam Voigts and Patricia Deery Kurtz, Scientific and Medical Writings in Old and Middle English: An Electronic Reference CD (Ann Arbor: Uni­ver­sity of Michigan Press, 2000) [accessed 29 September 2016] McIntosh, Angus, and others, An Electronic Version of a Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English (Edinburgh: Uni­ver­sity of Edinburgh, 2013) [accessed 29 April 2016] MED: Middle English Dictionary (Regents of the Uni­ver­sity of Michigan, 2001). [accessed 29 April 2016] Mooney, Linne, Simon Horobin, and Estelle Stubbs, Late Medi­eval English Scribes [accessed 29 April 2016] OED: Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press) [accessed 29 April 2016] Schoenberg Database of Manu­scripts (Penn Libraries, Uni­ver­sity of Pennsylvania) [accessed 12 January 2016]

Index of Manuscripts

Boston, Countway, MS Ballard 19: 2–4, 7, 10–12, 18–20, 26, 35–38, 40–41, 43, 46, 62–63, 107–08, 135, 136, 170, 173, 176–78, 185–89, 191, 210–12 Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 336/725: 7, 10–14, 17, 38, 47–49, 62, 171, 173, 176 Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.1.77: 2, 7, 10–14, 17, 35, 38, 41, 43–46, 62–63, 77, 89, 107–08, 117–18, 127, 129–30, 136–38, 171, 173, 176–78, 189, 190–92, 199, 211 London, British Library, MS Additional 5467: 7, 19, 107, 109–10, 115, 120, 211 —— , MS Additional 19674: 2, 6, 9, 84–87, 93–94, 104–106, 108, 113, 119, 125, 127, 140–44, 146, 148, 172, 191–92, 194–95, 198, 196, 200–02, 204–06 —— , MS Harley 1735: 113–16, 120, 126 —— , MS Sloane 1118: 5–6, 8–9, 36–37, 50, 63, 65–77, 78, 82–84, 86–92, 95–99, 102, 104–106, 108, 116, 119, 124–25, 140–42, 144, 146, 148–52, 172, 194–95, 196, 198, 200–02, 205, 208, 210, 214–24 —— , MS Sloane 1313: 6, 9, 20, 50, 56, 78–79, 80, 86–87, 99, 104–06, 110, 119, 124, 140 —— , MS Sloane 2320: 6–7, 9–14, 20, 37, 50–63, 65, 77–80, 84, 86–87, 89, 91–92, 94, 98–99, 103–06, 108, 116–119, 125, 130–32, 135, 172, 179, 180, 182, 194–96, 198, 200, 202, 204, 206, 208, 210–12 —— , MS Sloane 2567: 6, 9, 37, 79, 80–81, 86–89, 91–92, 104–106, 119, 124–25, 140, 172, 194–96, 198, 200–02, 206 —— , MS Sloane 2948: 5–6, 9, 19–20, 37, 60, 82–84, 86–87, 95–96, 98, 102, 104–06, 108, 110, 115, 119, 140, 142, 144–45, 147, 149, 152, 172, 191, 194–96, 198, 200, 202, 205, 211 —— , MS Sloane 3566: 6–7, 10–14, 17, 35, 38–43, 62–63, 77, 107, 117, 131–32, 134–37, 172–74, 176–78, 180, 182–84, 189, 191, 211 London, Wellcome Library, MS 784: 7, 15, 111–12, 119 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson C.815: 7, 112–13, 120 —— , MS e Musaeo 155: 7, 116–18, 119–20 Tokyo, Takamiya Collection, MS 33: 7, 10–14, 17, 47, 49, 62, 172–74, 176, 180, 182, 192–4

General Index

accidentibus. See Pseudo-Bacon, De accidentibus senectutis et senii accidentium. See Pseudo-Bacon, De retardatione accidentium senectutis Ad capillos denigrandos, recipe: 141, 148 Adam Pinkhurst, scribe: 27, 160 ageing: 9, 50, 52, 55–57, 59, 60–62, 65, 106, 125 Agnus Castus, herbal treatise: 82 agriculture: 109–110 Albertus Magnus. See Pseudo-Albertus alchemy: 4–6, 9, 65–70, 72–77, 80–82, 86–100, 102–03, 106, 108–09, 121, 123–25, 140–53, 172, 210–14 alchemist’s opus: 91 Byzantine: 87 medicinal: 45, 61 metallurgical: 89, 92 metaphoric language: 54, 90–92, 148 mystical: 54, 90 alcohol-based medicine: 2, 13–14, 16–17, 45, 55, 70, 74, 89, 141, 145–46, 149–51, 221 alembic vessel: 13 Almagest. See Ptolemy almanacs, printed: 15 Alphonso X, king of Castile, Léon, and Galicia: 163 Anatomia Porci. See Copho anchor texts: 156–57, 179 St Andrew’s Cross. See watermarks, Bull’s head Anglicana, script: 10, 41, 44, 48, 112 Anglo-Norman. See French

Anna de Beauchamp, sixteenth countess of Warwick: 93 annotations: 43, 46, 49, 73, 81, 85, 91–93 apothecaries: 133, 135 apothecaries’ weights: 137 Aqua, healing waters: Aqua ardens: 11, 13–14, 16, 55, 61, 89, 128, 146 Aqua mirabilis: 11, 48, 128 Aqua vitae: 2, 85–86, 89, 142, 145–46 Ar Rāzī, Persian physician and alchemist: 55 Arabic: language: 75, 90, 133–35, 145, 151–52 numerals: 71, 80 sources: 54, 72, 75, 88, 90, 126 Arderne, John. See John Arderne Aristotle: 57 Aristotelian medicine: 15 texts attributed to Aristotle. See Pseudo-Aristotle Armenian Bole, armoniac, armonyac, medical ingredient: 129, 132–33 Arms of Valencia. See watermarks, Arms of Valencia Arnald of Villanova, Catalan physician. See Pseudo-Arnaldus of Villanova Arnaldus Grecus: 66, 223 Ars sintrillia: 67, 124, 221 Ashmole, Elias: 92, 94 asma, asthma: 147 astrology: 6, 7, 9, 10, 14–17, 41, 43, 45–49, 51, 78, 84–85, 93–94, 102, 111, 113, 115, 121, 123–124, 128–29, 132, 210 astronomy: 93–94, 123–124

242

Auchinleck manuscript: 160 Avicenna. See Ibn-Sīnā Bacon, Roger, Franciscan scholar. See Pseudo-Bacon; Roger Bacon Barba, Johannes de. See John of Burgundy barber-surgeons: 51, 126 Bartholomeus Anglicus, encyclopaedic author: 17, 133 Bastard Secretary. See Secretary, script baths. See King’s Bath Beauchamp, Anna de. See Anna de Beauchamp bespoke book trade. See book trade, bespoke Bethazaer, medicine: 135–36 bilingualism: 3, 20, 122, 130 binding: 10, 30, 35–36, 38, 47, 49, 50, 52, 55, 61, 63, 66, 77, 78, 80, 84, 109, 111, 112, 117 book binders: 1, 24, 28 Black Death: 16, 123 bleeding. See phlebotomy bloodletting. See phlebotomy blue ink, blue decorations. See ink, blue Bole, bole armoniac. See Armenian Bole book trade: bespoke: 24, 29, 32, 38, 62, 211 collaboration between book artisans: 19, 25, 27–28, 29–30, 38, 212 co-ordination: 2, 5, 20–21, 28, 43 ‘farming-out’ or outsourcing: 27, 43, 61 freelance scribes: 2, 18, 26 speculative: 1–3, 21, 25, 29–30, 32, 43, 46, 62–63, 211–12 booklets: 31–33, 38, 46, 50–64, 67–79, 80–81, 83–84, 85, 86–87, 91, 94, 95, 98, 99, 102, 104–08, 110, 115–16, 117, 119, 125, 130, 140, 172, 210–12 Bordeaux, John of. See John of Burgundy brown ink, brownish ink. See ink, brown Bruges, city: 23, 29–30, 63, 211 Brut, chronicle: 29 Bull’s head. See watermarks, Bull’s head Burdegalia. See John of Burgundy calculations, astrological: 3, 15, 46, 48, 129–30, 210–11 callosity: 94 Canterbury Tales: 27, 133, 183

GENERAL INDEX capillos. See Ad capillos denigrandos cardiac vein: 136 Cardinal Wolsey: 163, 169 Castri. See Dominus Castri goet Catalan, language: 4, 95 Caxton, William. See William Caxton Chancery: office: 117, 158, 162–66, 169 standard: 155, 162–66, 169, 213 chancellerie royale, Paris: 163 chancellery of Toledo: 163 charms: 79, 82, 113, 126–27, 142–43 charts: alchemical: 67 astrological: 15, 48 Chauliac. See Guy de Chauliac Chauliac/Rosarium dialect: 168, 209 Chirurgia Magna: 171 choler. See humours chrysopoeia, transmutation of base metals into precious: 88–89, 92, 95 clauses: dependent: 134 imperative: 139 independent: 133–34 paratactic: 150 ut-finale: 148 clergy: 61, 123, 158 code-switching: 151 extrasentential: 133, 143, 152 flagging: 134–36, 146–47, 152 intersentential: 133, 152 intrasentential: 133, 138, 140, 150, 152, 213 codicization: 33, 77 coitus. See sexual intercourse Cokkes. See John Cokkes collaboration between book artisans. See book trade, collaboration Collectanea Medica. See Index of Manuscripts: Boston, Countway, MS Ballard 19 colophon: 4, 24, 95, 117 comments. See annotations commissions. See book trade, bespoke; book trade, speculative commonplace book. See John Crophill Company of Stationers. See Stationers’ Company

GENERAL INDEX compressed (Secretary) hand. See Secretary, script condicionibus. See De condicionibus septem planetarum Confessio amantis: 27, 29 continental Europe: 2, 18, 26, 58, 122 contracts. See book trade Copho, Salernitan author: Anatomia Porci: 38 De parva anathomia Galeni: 38 Core Group: 2, 4, 6–10, 19–21, 50, 52, 58, 59, 60, 63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 76, 77, 78–79, 80–81, 82–84, 85–94, 97–99, 101, 104, 106, 107–08, 109–13, 116, 117, 119–20, 123–25, 139–40, 142, 145, 148, 150, 152, 155, 169–172, 179, 191, 192, 194–209, 210–14 courts: 1, 24, 26, 88, 96, 99, 157, 166 episcopal courts: 23 Cremona, Gerard of. See Gerard of Cremona crescent moon. See watermarks, Bull’s head Cromwell, Thomas: 58–59 Crophill, John. See John Crophill cropping: 36–38, 43, 111 crown. See watermarks, Bull’s head damage, damaged leaves: 32, 72, 78–79, 80–82, 84–85, 109, 112 Daniel, Henry. See Henry Daniel dark ink. See ink, dark De condicionibus septem planetarum: 11, 15 De occultacione lapidis: 70, 217 De parva anathomia Galeni. See Copho De regimine sanitatis: 11, 13, 16, 48, 61–62, 128 De signis sumptis per lunam in quo signo zodiaci sit: 11, 15, 128 Decknamen, alchemical cover names: 90 decoration, manuscript: 9, 10, 24, 31, 37, 38, 42–44, 46–49, 51, 61–62, 66–67, 74, 76–78, 102, 106, 112–13, 117 Dee, John, mathematician, occult philosopher: 67 Delta-scribe: 27, 209 de luxe manuscripts: 10, 62 denigrandos, dyeing hair. See Ad capillos denigrandos diagnosis: 10, 12, 15, 85, 129–30

243

diet, treatment: 17, 61–62, 126 digestives. See Manipulus medicine de digestivis et laxativis dilectissime frater. See John of Burgundy dimidium. See apothecaries’ weights discourse markers: 133 distillation. See alcohol-based medicine domain, in genre theory: 121, 123–25, 150, 152–53, 164, 168, 209, 213 Dominus Castri goet, author of a Pseudo-Baconian treatise: 53 drachm, drame. See apothecaries’ weights dung: 150 Dutch, language: 14 Ebesham, William. See William Ebesham Edward III, King of England: 93, 162 Edward IV, King of England: 20, 97–98, 108, 164 efficacy statement, in a recipe: 13, 151 Egypt: 72, 87 elements four elements: 115, 118, 150 fifth element: 45, 59, 60, 61, 89, 142, 146, 150 language-independent: 136, 138 elixir of life: 4, 88–89 Ellesmere manuscript: 27, 160, 183 elves: 126 Emerald Tablet: 71–72, 223 empic, empicus, empique, inflammation of the chest: 147 encyclopaedias, encyclopaedic tradition: 17, 127 epar. See liver epidemics. See pestilence; Black Death; John of Burgundy epistolary version. See John of Burgundy Exchequer, office: 164 exemplar: 1, 28, 30, 31, 63, 72, 117, 120, 131, 137, 152, 156, 164, 168, 172, 211 Expositiones colorum urinarum in ordine: 11–13, 128, 130 extrasentential. See code-switching famulatu. See Pseudo-Bacon ‘farming-out’ or outsourcing of manuscripts. See book trade fascicle, fascicular. See booklets

244

Fauceby, John. See John Fauceby fever: 10, 45, 134 fifth element. See elements, fifth element filigranes. See watermarks fimo equino. See dung Fistula in ano. See John Arderne flagging. See code-switching flasks. See jordans flatulence: 13 flowers. See watermarks, flowers flyleaves: 37, 43–44, 46, 84, 137–38 folk healers: 124 formata, grade of handwriting: 10, 44, 46 fornacum. See Pseudo-Jābir fragments: 7, 41, 58–59, 79, 80, 83, 106, 112–13, 120 frame ruling: 42, 47, 49, 59, 76, 79, 83, 109–10, 117 France: 109, 116, 158, 162–64 freelance scribes. See book trade French, language: 14, 68, 70, 72–73, 78–79, 93, 95, 102, 105, 110, 121–23, 126, 134, 136–37, 139–40, 145–47, 152, 157–58, 162–65, 209 furnaces, illustrations of: 67, 75, 89 Gale, Roger, collector: 44 Galen, Galenism: 13, 15, 41, 126 gallice. See French Garton, Giles: 112 gatherings. See quiring Geber. See Pseudo-Jābir genre, genres: 1, 15, 30, 33, 43, 54, 57, 88, 121, 123–25, 178, 209 George Ripley, alchemist: 98 Gerard of Cremona, translator of Liber de Veritate Hypocratis: 58 Ghent-Bruges books of hours: 29–30, 63, 211 Gilbert Kymer, physician: 20, 98 glosses: 25, 51, 129, 135, 136, 145, 152, 213 Golden Table of Pythagoras: 48 Gower, John. See John Gower grade. See formata; media grapes. See watermarks, grapes Greek: influence and traditions: 13, 72, 90, 124, 126–27 language and vocabulary: 130, 133, 145 guilds: 24, 26, 126, 160

GENERAL INDEX Gutenberg, Johannes: 1 Guy de Chauliac: 48, 146, 167–68, 171 gynaecological texts: 113 haematoscopy: 85 Hammond scribe: 168–69, 178, 187, 201 hand or glove. See watermarks, hand or glove handful. See apothecaries’ weights Hattecliffe, William. See William Hattecliffe headache: 82 headings: 25, 37, 42, 45, 48, 55, 69–70, 72, 81, 92, 102, 106, 113, 116, 131, 132, 140–42 Hebrew, language: 14 Hengwrt manuscript: 27, 160, 183 Henry IV, King of England: 88–89, 95, 162 Henry V, King of England: 94, 158, 162, 164–65 Henry VI, King of England: 2, 5, 94–95, 97–99, 109, 141 Henry Daniel, monk and translator: 17 Henry Machyn. See Machyn, Henry herbals, genre: 9, 58, 78, 82–84, 87, 98, 106, 123, 208 Hermann Zurke of Greifswald, scribe: 20 Hermes Trismegistus, the legendary founder of alchemy: 70–72, 223 Hiera Picra: 142, 145 Higden, Ranulph. See Ranulph Higden Hippocrates. See Pseudo-Hippocrates Hippocratic medicine: 15 Hoccleve. See Thomas Hoccleve holograph, scribal: 98, 100 Hortolanus. See Ortolanus Martinus humours, humoral theory: 12–14, 98, 124, 142 choler: 12, 142 melancholy: 12 phlegm: 12, 99 sanguine: 43, 83 Ibn-Sīnā: 88 ierapigre. See Hiera Picra illumination: 29–30, 31, 38, 45, 62 initials: decorated: 9, 38, 42, 44, 48–49, 51, 62, 66, 76–77, 106, 112, 117

GENERAL INDEX ‘R. B.’ initials: 117 missing: 9, 29, 51, 72, 78–79, 102, 106, 110 ink: blue: 10, 37, 42–44, 48, 51, 66, 74, 76–77, 112, 117 brown: 37, 39, 41, 81, 110, 116, 130 dark: 38, 41, 43, 67, 81, 92 red: 10, 37–38, 40, 42, 44, 47, 48, 51, 66, 74, 76–77, 112, 117, 130, 133 yellow: 48 instruments, illustrations of: 67, 75 intersentential. See code-switching intrasentential. See code-switching italic hand: 69, 73 jerapigra. See Hiera Picra John XXII, pope: 88 John Arderne, surgeon: 98, 136, 166 John of Burgundy, medical author: 7, 11, 14–16, 37, 55, 111–12, 128–31, 133–36, 152 John Cokkes, physician: 116–17 John Crophill, amateur medical practitioner: 7, 8, 16, 93, 107, 113–16, 126 commonplace book: 8, 16, 93, 107, 113–16 John Dastin, alchemist: 66, 74, 89, 221 John Dee. See Dee, John John Fauceby, physician and alchemist: 94–95 John Gower, poet: 160 John Kirkby, alchemist: 4–5, 71–72, 83, 94, 95–100, 116 John Lydgate, poet: 109 John Paston (II): 2, 18, 26, 37–38, 62–63, 163, 185, 211 John Paston (III): 163 John Pauper, alchemist: 66, 224 John Rainy, alchemist: 95 John of Rupescissa, Catalan alchemist and doomsday prophet: 45, 50, 59, 66, 74, 89, 91, 117, 220 Book of Quintessence: 45–46, 50, 59, 61, 74, 89, 91, 117, 220 John Shirley, scribe: 19, 109, 211 John Trevisa, translator: 17, 133, 159, 171 jordans, urine flasks: 12, 39, 42, 45–46, 48–49, 51, 111, 131

245

King’es Bath, alchemical verses: 68–69, 125, 172, 215 ‘Kingmaker’. See Richard Neville Kirkby. See John Kirkby Kymer. See Gilbert Kymer Lancastrians, Lancastrian monarchs: 29, 94, 99, 162 Lanfranc, surgeon: 133 lapidary, genre: 57 lapis philosophorum. See Philosophers’ Stone lapwing, bird: 145 Latin, language: 2–4, 12, 14–17, 20, 35–38, 42, 45, 47, 49–50, 53, 55, 68–70, 72, 78–81, 82–83, 84–86, 90–91, 93, 95, 102–03, 105–06, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121–23, 127–52, 157, 162, 164–65, 209, 213 Latin alchemical tradition: 53, 87, 90 laxative remedies. See Manipulus medicine de digestivis et laxativis Layamon. See Brut, chronicle layout. See mise-en-page leprosy: 45 Liber de judiciis urinae: 111 Liber de secretis naturalis: 76, 220, 222 Liber de veritate Hypocratis: 50, 58 Liber librum aperit, alchemical aphorism: 91 libra. See apothecaries’ weights limners: 1, 24, 28 literacy: 1, 3, 20, 23, 122 litterae notabiliores: 45, 48 liver: 10, 138 Llull, Ramón. See Ramón Llull loan translations: 132–33 Lollards: 167 London: 4–5, 19–20, 23–24, 26–29, 83, 94, 98, 121, 155, 158–62, 165–67, 168–70, 172–173, 175–78, 183–201, 204–214 metropolitan area of London: 19, 184, 204, 209 love poetry: 52 Lydgate. See John Lydgate macaronic. See code-switching Machyn, Henry: 163 magic: 6, 9, 50, 57–58, 60–61, 63, 65, 77, 85–87, 98, 102, 106, 121, 123–125, 127, 210

246

manicule: 37, 40 manipulus. See apothecaries’ weights Manipulus medicine de digestivis et laxativis: 10, 12, 14–15, 17, 99, 128 manuscript abbreviations: 44, 127, 129, 136–39, 143, 145–46, 149, 151, 187 Marchall. See Roger Marchall Margaret, Princess of York: 18 marginal comments. See annotations marriage, alchemical: 148–49 measles: 37 measurements. See apothecaries’ weights media, grade of handwriting: 10, 41, 44, 112 melancholy. See humours MEMT, Middle English Medical Texts: 126–27, 172, 178 mercury, substance: 74, 81, 89, 148, 221 Merlin, wizard: 70, 109 metallurgical alchemy. See alchemy metaphor. See alchemy metatextual: 131, 140 miasma, 1348: 16 Middle English, language: 2, 4, 12, 14–15, 35, 45, 47, 48–50, 68–70, 73, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86–87, 91, 93, 102–04, 108, 110–111, 115, 120, 121–123, 126–127–34, 136, 138–42, 144–52, 155–209 minuscule: 209 Mischsprache: 168, 172 mise-en-page: 2, 4–5, 7–10, 25, 50, 60, 65, 66–68, 72, 78–79, 82, 84–86, 101–02, 112, 116, 210 monasteries: 18, 23, 87 monogrammatic letter. See watermarks, monogrammatic letter mounted leaves: 78, 80, 82–83, 106, 113, 115 mounts. See watermarks, mounts multiplication. See chrysopoeia Muslim authorities: 75 mystical. See alchemy Neville, Richard. See Richard Neville notebook. See John Crophill oak-apple: 148 obstetrical recipes and charms: 113 Ochsenkopf. See watermarks, Ochsenkopf

GENERAL INDEX OED, Oxford English Dictionary: 132–33, 137, 145–46 ointment to bring sleep: 55 on spec. See book trade opus. See alchemy Opus philosophicum. See Pseudo-Bacon Opus de elixir aquarum ad album. See John Dastin Ortolanus Martinus: 71–72, 74 ounce. See apothecaries’ weights ovens. See furnaces, illustrations of Palgrave, Thomas Martin, antiquarian and lawyer: 84 parataxis. See clauses parchminers: 24 Paris, city: 16, 31, 163 Paschal lamb. See watermarks, Paschal lamb Paston, John. See John Paston Paternoster Row, London: 24, 26 St Paul’s, London: 26 pecia system: 31 pestilence: 16, 123 remedies against: 55, 61, 113, 131 See also Black Death; John of Burgundy petition of alchemists, 1456: 4, 95, 100 Philosophers’ stone: 70–71, 217, 224 phlebotomy, bloodletting: 85, 115, 126–27 phlegm, phlegmatic. See humours physiognomy: 15, 48, 78 pigs. See Copho Pillulis contra pestilenciam, pills against pestilence: 50, 54–57, 61 Pinkhurst. See Adam Pinkhurst plague. See pestilence planets. See seven planets Playter. See Thomas Playter Polychronicon. See Ranulph Higden potable gold: 69, 73 pound. See apothecaries’ weights practica, genre: 123 Practica urinarum: 10, 12, 103, 128, 134, 172 Privy Seal, office: 27, 160, 164 professional scribes: 8, 25–26, 27, 44, 62–63, 112, 113–15 prognosis: 11, 17, 111, 113, 115 pseudepigraphy: 4, 45, 50, 52, 54–58, 60–61, 66, 70–71, 74–76, 90, 95, 124

GENERAL INDEX Pseudo-Albertus: 50, 57 Book of Secrets: 50 Pseudo-Aristotle: 11, 13, 54, 62, 128 Pseudo-Arnaldus of Villanova: 9, 45, 50, 54–56, 61, 63, 66, 76, 89, 91, 98, 220, 222 Liber de secretis naturalis: 76, 220, 222 De vinis: 45–46, 55, 61, 89 Pseudo-Bacon: De accidentibus senectutis et senii: 56, 118 De famulatu philosophiae: 50, 59 De retardatione accidentium senectutis: 51, 52–56, 60–61, 117–18 Opus philosophicum: 70 Speculum Alchymiae/Alkame: 70, 76, 91, 218, 220 Pseudo-Galen. See Copho Pseudo-Hippocrates: 50, 58–59, 61 Liber de veritate Hypocratis: 50, 58–59, 61 Secreta Hypocratis: 58 Pseudo-Jābir alias Geber, Arab alchemist: 66, 74–75, 90, 98, 218–19 Liber fornacum: 74–75, 218 Pseudo-Llull: 4, 66, 89, 95 Testamentum: 4, 95 Ptolemy, Greek astronomer: Almagest: 124 Pulvis imperialis. See Bethazaer Pulvis Walteri: 13 purgative remedies: 12, 15, 17, 48, 128, 145 Pythagoras. See Golden Table of Pythagoras quarter. See measurements quarto-sized codices: 7–8, 50, 78, 84, 102, 106, 109, 111, 119, 209 quintessence. See elements, fifth element quiring: 9, 27, 36, 38, 41–43, 44, 46, 47, 50–60, 65, 66–77, 78–79, 80–81, 82–84, 84–87, 91, 92, 104, 108, 109–10, 111–12, 112–13, 113–16, 116–18, 119–20, 152 in tens: 9, 102, 106, 109 raisins. See watermarks, grapes Ramón Llull. See Pseudo-Llull Ranulph Higden: 159 Raymond Llull. See Pseudo-Llull red ink. See ink, red regimen, genre: 13, 16, 48, 61, 62, 79, 85, 123, 128

247

Rhazes. See Ar Rāzī rhyme: 151 Richard Neville alias Kingmaker, 16th Earl of Warwick: 93 Richard III, King of England: 93 Ripley. See George Ripley Robert Broke, master of the king’s stillatories: 2 Roger Bacon: 116–18. See also Pseudo-Bacon Roger Marchall, collector and patron: 93–94, 99 Rosarium. See Chauliac/Rosarium rubrications. See ink, red Rupescissa. See John of Rupescissa sanguine. See humours scales. See watermarks, scales scholastic medicine: 15–17, 87, 91, 126–26, 211 scissors. See watermarks, scissors scriptorium, scriptoria: 1, 27–28, 30, 38, 62–63, 167–69, 177, 211–12 scriveners: 20, 25, 27, 160 scruple. See apothecaries’ weights sealed earth. See Terra sigillata secrets, genre: 54, 57, 61–62, 65 Secretum secretorum: 7, 47, 49, 54, 109 Secretary, script: 10, 18, 41, 59, 66, 69–72, 74, 79–84, 86, 102–06, 110, 113, 115–16, 119–20, 142, 210 Bastard Secretary: 69, 72, 102, 106, 110, 113, 116, 119, 142 compressed Secretary hand: 9, 70, 72, 79, 80, 84, 86, 101–02, 104, 106, 110, 112, 116, 118, 210 semis. See apothecaries’ weights seven planets: 11, 15, 67, 115, 128, 148, 171–72, 176, 192 sextodecimo, paper size: 44 sexual intercourse: 37, 40, 74 Shirley. See John Shirley Sibling Group: 2, 4, 6–7, 9–19, 20, 35–63, 66, 86, 89, 107–08, 112, 116–17, 120, 127–139, 142, 146, 148, 152, 155, 168, 169, 170–172, 173–194, 195, 198, 210–214 Sibling Set Text: 4, 7, 9–19, 35–63, 64, 99, 103, 111, 115, 120, 127–139, 172, 173–194, 210–214

248

Signa sanguinis peccantis: 83 Signet, office: 158 Sintrillia. See Ars sintrillia Sloane, Sir Hans, physician and collector: 5, 52, 92 Sloane manuscript. See Index of Manu­scripts: London, British Library, MS Sloane speculative book production. See book trade Staleworthe. See William Stalworth standardization, the development of written standard English: 157–69 stationers: 1, 24, 28, 29 Stationers’ Company: 24 sublimation, an alchemical process: 144 surgery, surgeons: 78, 94, 97, 99, 126–27, 133, 136, 146, 167–68, 177–78 tables. See charts Tau cross: 68, 76 Terra sigillata: 132–33 Testamentum. See Pseudo-Llull Teutonicus. See Pseudo-Albertus Magnus text-writers, guild: 25–26 Theatro Chymico: 70 Tholome. See Ptolemy Thomas Cromwell. See Cromwell, Thomas Thomas Hoccleve, poet: 160 Thomas Leenys, Paston agent: 26 Thomas Norton, lawyer, poet and alchemist: 98 Thomas Playter, Norfolk lawyer: 163 To make a broken sword whole, recipe: 73, 89, 140–41 toothache, charm for: 142–42 Tractatus de complexione pueri et matri: 41 transmutation. See chrysopoeia Trevisa. See John Trevisa trilingualism: 165, 213 Trismegistus. See Hermes Trismegistus Twenty-Jordan Series: 10–12, 16, 39, 45, 48–49, 51, 128, 130–31, 151, 172 unbound booklets and quires: 1, 10, 38, 60, 76, 80, 85 Unguentum sompniferum. See ointment to bring sleep unicorn’s head. See watermarks, unicorn’s head

GENERAL INDEX unicorns. See watermarks, unicorns universal medicine. See elixir or life. uroscopy: 12–13, 15, 17, 46, 48–49, 78, 83, 111, 115, 123, 128, 130, 132 ventositas. See flatulence vernacularization: 122–23 volvelle, astrological instrument: 15, 48 watermarks Arms of Valencia: 36, 68, 70, 74, 80–81, 84, 102, 107–08 Bull’s head watermark: 56, 57, 79, 116 with St Andrew’s Cross: 44, 53, 79, 102, 107–08, 110, 116, 217 with crescent moon: 85, 108 with crown: 111–12 with Tau cross: 68 flowers: 72, 74, 83, 108 grapes: 72, 99, 108, 116 hand or glove: 112 monogrammatic letter: 110 mounts: 44, 58, 83, 105, 108 Ochsenkopf: 112 paschal lamb: 72, 108 scales: 108 scissors: 51, 56, 108, 217 unicorn’s head: 44 unicorns: 59, 108 Westminster: 1–3, 5, 18–19, 26, 63, 107, 158–60, 162, 169, 185, 211 William Caxton, printer: 1–2, 7, 19–20, 23, 37, 46, 107, 116, 158, 163, 169, 213 William Ebesham, scribe: 2, 4, 18–19, 26, 35, 37–38, 40, 62–63, 107, 130, 170, 185, 187, 211, 213 William Hattecliffe, physician and diplomat: 94 William Stalworth, Royal surgeon: 94, 99, 127 wine. See Pseudo-Arnaldus of Villanova Wolsey. See Cardinal Wolsey woodcut: 42 Writers of the Court Letter, guild: 24, 26 Wycliffite texts: 159, 166–67 yellow ink. See ink, yellow Yorkists: 29, 97 ypocras. See Pseudo-Hippocrates zodiac man: 15, 38, 42–43, 46, 51

Texts and Transitions

All volumes in this series are evaluated by an Editorial Board, strictly on academic grounds, based on reports prepared by referees who have been commissioned by virtue of their specialism in the appropriate field. The Board ensures that the screening is done independently and without conflicts of interest. The definitive texts supplied by authors are also subject to review by the Board before being approved for publication. Further, the volumes are copyedited to conform to the publisher’s stylebook and to the best international academic standards in the field. Titles in Series Jane H. M. Taylor, The Making of Poetry: Late-Medieval French Poetic Anthologies (2007) Rebecca L. Schoff, Reformations: Three Medieval Authors in Manuscript and Movable Type (2008) Alexandra Barratt, Anne Bulkeley and her Book: Fashioning Female Piety in Early Tudor England (2009) Mary-Jo Arn, The Poet’s Notebook: The Personal Manuscript of Charles d’Orléans (Paris, BnF MS fr. 25458) (2009) The Making of the Vernon Manuscript: The Production and Contexts of Oxford, Bodleian, MS Eng. Poet. A. 1, ed. by Wendy Scase (2013) Probable Truth: Editing Medieval Texts from Britain in the Twenty-First Century, ed. by Vincent Gillespie and Anne Hudson (2013) Kathleen Tonry, Agency and Intention in English Print, 1476–1526 (2016) Deborah L. Moore, Medieval Anglo-Irish Troubles: A Cultural Study of BL MS Harley 913 (2016)

In Preparation Pursuing Middle English Manuscripts and their Texts: Essays in Honour of Ralph Hanna, ed. by Simon Horobin and Aditi Nafde Susan Powell, The Birgittines of Syon Abbey: Preaching and Print