Cataloguing Discrepancies: The Printed York Breviary of 1493 9781442690189

Citation preview

Cataloguing DisCrepanCies: the printeD York BreviarY of 1493

This page intentionally left blank

anDrew hughes in collaboration with Matthew Cheung Salisbury and Heather Robbins

Cataloguing Discrepancies: the printed York Breviary of 1493

universitY of toronto press toronto Buffalo london

© university of toronto press incorporated 2011 toronto Buffalo london www.utppublishing.com printed in Canada isBn 978-1-4426-4197-6

printed on acid-free, 100% post-consumer recycled paper with vegetable-based inks.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication hughes, andrew, 1937– Cataloguing discrepancies : the printed York Breviary of 1493/andrew hughes ; in collaboration with Matthew Cheung and heather robbins. includes bibliographical references and index. isBn 978-1-4426-4197-6 1. Cataloging of Catholic literature. 2. Catholic Church – liturgy – Bibliography – Catalogs. 3. Breviaries – Bibliography – Catalogs. i. Cheung, Matthew r., 1984– ii. robbins, heather iii. title. Z695.1.t3h84 2010

025.3'2

C2010-905116-5

this book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian federation for the humanities and social sciences, through the aid to scholarly publications program, using funds provided by the social sciences and humanities research Council of Canada. university of toronto press acknowledges the financial assistance to its publishing program of the Canada Council for the arts and the ontario arts Council.

university of toronto press acknowledges the financial support of the government of Canada through the Canada Book fund for its publishing activities.

any attempt to treat books of all periods in the same fashion will quickly be found to be impractical and to lead only to complications and inconsistencies. ronald B. Mckerrow, An introduction to bibliography for literary students, 1927

Beware, sir of acquiring the habit of reading catalogues; you will never get any good from it, and it will consume much of your time. Martin routh (1755–1854), theologian, president of Magdalen College, and proponent of reference-checking

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

1 Preface xi acknowledgments

xiv

2 Lists, Principal Abbreviations, and References xvii paragraph numbers and the index xvii abbreviations and references xvii Manuscript sigla xviii Catalogue references to the 1493 Breviary xviii illustrations xx glossary xxi 3 Cataloguing Discrepancies 3 Catalogues of printed sources: their problems the 1493 Breviary 6 Catalogues of the manuscripts 7 the social context 8 the stationers 10 John ga[s]chet 10

3

4 Describing the Breviary and Its Cataloguers 12 the witnesses 13 the Bodleian copy 13 the Bate copy 14 the fragments 15 The British Library fragments 15 The Cambridge University Library fragments 16 The Ushaw College fragments 16 The Bodleian Library fragments 16

viii

Contents

lawley’s edition 17 the contents of the witnesses 18 the history of the witnesses 19 material characteristics of the witnesses 23 the imprint 24 The Catalogue headings 25 The title-page 25 The opening page and end material 26 The colophon 27 the size, format, and binding 28 The fragments 29 The books 30 the structure 32 Signatures 32 Signature 35 35 the folio numbers 38 Folio numbers: original and reproductions 41 the missing folio numbers and the beginning of the sanctorale 42 The (re)numbering of the Sanctorale 44 the headings 48 Galleys 50 the typeface 50 initials 52 5 The Liturgical Context 55 new feasts 56 from manuscript to print 59 the Becket office 59 The sungtexts 60 The lessons 61 the compositor’s task 63 stop-press revisions 65 6 The Manuscripts and Prints 68 manuscripts 68 the principal feasts of York and the place of use 69 the continued use of the manuscripts and the new feasts the dating 70 liturgical changes 71 the wollaton antiphonal 72 the Becket office 73

70

Contents

the skelton manuscript 74 Conclusions (manuscripts) 75 Printed books 75 Conclusions (printed books) 76 7 Modern Technology 77 photographic reproductions 77 Photography 78 Microfilm 79 Microfiche 79 Digital images 80 Duplicated or omitted frames or pages 81 Openings: duplicated or omitted images 81 Openings: missing leaves 83 Pages: discontinuous images 84 The facsimiles 84 8 Recommendations and Conclusions 91 recommendations 91 a catalogue entry 91 General, primary descriptions 91 Secondary literature 92 The research process 93 Desiderata 93 conclusions 95 9 App. 1 Inventories 99 the comparative inventory 99 Format and terminology 99 Liturgy 100 Types of errors 100 the structural inventory 100 10 App. 2 The Sources of the York Office 116 Manuscripts of York Use 116 Other Manuscripts 123 Printed Books 126 11 App. 3 Resources for Early Printed Books 152 Notes

165

General Bibliography Index

177

173

ix

This page intentionally left blank

1 preface

¶101 the importance of investigating medieval books for the liturgical offices, perhaps the largest unexplored corpus of similar material, hardly needs to be emphasized. liturgy was the backbone of most medieval activities, providing material for many aspects of contemporary literary endeavours. But assessing the influence in a general sense can be undertaken only after individual uses have been defined, differentiated, and described. this task can be carried out only after individual books have been examined, inventoried, and compared in detail. very few books have in fact received adequate treatment. there are many reasons for this situation. the books are extremely hard to use; few institutions teach, or have taught, medieval liturgy, especially of the offices. word-by-word collation, which is probably necessary, is extremely tedious: few scholars have the time, or perhaps the patience, for such work, from which reliable if not quite elusive results may be apparent only after years of experience. the books are distributed widely over the whole of europe and also in north american libraries: few scholars have the financial means to work with more than a handful. these adverse conditions have no doubt always been true, and at times made worse by war, political constraints, and the need to do everything by hand or by typewriter. as a result of all these difficulties, inventories of individual books are often thin on real detail or, worse, reliant to too great a degree on earlier descriptions without a new examination of the book itself. ¶102 the subject of this book is not primarily the Breviary identified in the title, or the liturgy it contains, or the wider context into which it fits. rather, the book is a vehicle for examining methods of cataloguing, past and present. sadly, these have often been less than adequate, for the

xii

Cataloguing Discrepancies

reasons already stated. Many of the discrepancies we reveal may stem from circumstances we cannot now imagine – perhaps, for instance, the existence of copies that have since disappeared. in the opening sections, we describe the copies of the Breviary and comment on the earlier catalogues in which it is listed. More briefly, we pass onto a discussion of the peculiarities of the York use, followed by a summary of the manuscript predecessors of 1493, and the later prints. some detailed aspects of a single office within the Breviary – that of st thomas Becket – are provided as an example of the textual work that needs to be done. we briefly examine the defects, problems, and opportunities that new technologies have brought about for the investigation and transmission of liturgical texts. ¶103 we provide a correct and complete inventory of the contents of the single printing of the 1493 Breviary, whose surviving copies are few enough in number to be accessible. in appendix 1, we supply inventories comparing the two complete copies and their photographic reproductions on film and in digital images. Despite the advantages offered by modern electronic technology for compiling such information, a complete list of York books for the Divine office has never been published. in appendix 2, we list all sources of the York office liturgy in manuscript and printed Breviaries and antiphonals. nor has there been a comprehensive account of catalogues of such books, reaching back almost three hundred years. Bibliographical resources of this kind are listed immediately after this preface and described fully in appendix 3. we thought it appropriate to make some positive suggestions for the preparation of inventories and catalogues of early liturgical books. these are in chapter 8. ¶104 investigating this topic has been the work of several years for two and later three researchers. to one lingering question we found the answer only as final drafts of this text were in preparation. But often the resolution of one question led to several other intractable problems, for which rare books, some dating from the early 18th century, were sometimes necessary. we were fortunate in having the superb resources of the several university of toronto libraries, even for such ancient material. to have waited for the resolution of all problems would have delayed the publication beyond reason: to have fully described every source would have taken many more years, and numerous trips across the atlantic, or would have required the repeated assistance of British librarians, friends, and colleagues. we eventually decided not to tax their patience further. the presentation is complete, and we hope reasonably definitive, for the wollaton and skelton manuscripts, for the 1493 print, for the physical

preface

xiii

description of one copy of the publications of 1507 and 1526, and for the collection of secondary information for all the other witnesses of the York Breviary. it is substantially complete in its accumulation of information about resources for early printed books in general. Yet much work remains to be done on liturgical books, both for the other english uses and for the Mass. in addition to his work with the books themselves, Matthew salisbury prepared the final inventories and revised the final text. heather robbins was responsible for the bibliographic work, investigating the complex relationships among the resources, and compiling the lists. andrew hughes worked on liturgical matters and prepared the drafts which robbins and salisbury checked, revised, and improved. we hope that our work will clarify rather than blame, and will not result in too many additional difficulties. any problems, defects, discrepancies, and errors of the kind we hope not to replicate are the total responsibility of the principal author, in whose previous books blame was laid upon the dog. that is no longer possible. the several elephants in the section on printed sources are suspicious candidates. Facsimiles ¶105 as the production stage of this volume came into play, it became obvious that a preliminary paragraph about the images in chapter 7 and elsewhere might be necessary. it has now become almost impossible to produce, at a reasonable cost, a book with facsimiles. recently, hughes was asked by a major British library to pay £40 for at most 4 square inches of facsimile. for this book alone, a fee of over £400 was reduced to over £200. some authorities claim that reproducing such a small area constitutes ‘fair usage’ and thus no fee is necessary: publishers may not be willing to take the risk. reproducing whole pages, as is frequently the case in this book, is a different matter and may make the costs prohibitive for an author (perhaps £800 ($1200–1500) per page if the area is considered proportionately). a further complication is the availability of images from the internet. these can often, as in our case and increasingly, be downloaded with ease. the resolution of such images, however, is set at an appropriate level for display on computer screens, a level quite adequate for viewing and for printing on local (laser) printers, but seemingly not adequate for the technologies preferred by major publishers. such dilemmas are especially crucial for publications dealing with the Middle ages and requiring many references to original sources. in

xiv

Cataloguing Discrepancies

the present volume, the images in chapter 7 are deliberately designed to reveal the inadequacies of reproducing images from the internet and from two other readily available media, microfilm and microfiche, to demonstrate the advantages of one medium over another for certain purposes, and to demonstrate that some inadequacies may be to some extent overcome by photomanipulation that can be carried out fairly easily by computer routines. these images, then, are bound to be of less than perfect quality because they are, intentionally, reproductions of photographs taken at unknown resolutions and made available on the internet at resolutions appropriate for the computer monitor. the images of course are degraded at every transfer. as for those images in other places, where photographs of the originals might have been used, one of the authors at least was unwilling to spend hundreds of pounds merely to satisfy a need for legibility (which is not always necessary) and quality, when the images are accessible and free in other media nowadays available in perfectly adequate quality and thought by many to be a preferable means of acquiring visual information. Acknowledgments this project is part of a larger study funded by the social sciences and humanities research Council of Canada. salisbury’s travel to england was subsidized by a grant from trinity College, toronto, through the good offices of Derek allen. all three of us are scholars of medieval manuscripts. some conventions of describing early printed books seem strange, like the use of ‘cancelled’ to mean ‘replaced.’ we had to rely heavily on the advice of friends and colleagues. Cristina Dondi and richard sharpe read drafts, as did germaine warkentin, who also pointed us in the direction of useful information about early printing, especially the text by philip gaskell, allowing us to improve our knowledge about early printing techniques. nigel Morgan was kind enough to allow us to use his database of early english liturgical books and generously answered various questions. richard sharpe followed up our enquiries about material on the titlepage of the book. estelle Joubert looked up material in the Bodleian library, and tawnie olson in the library of Yale university. sherry reames supplied details of her recent publications about the sarum and Becket lessons. kathleen McMorrow, librarian of the faculty of Music, and professor sandra alston, of the faculty of information science at the university of toronto, helped with the concept of the ‘ideal copy.’

preface

xv

Many librarians and archivists were kind enough to offer help to salisbury and to answer our questions about their books. John feather made the Bate copy of the Breviary available and gave us much information, as well as supplying photographs. John goldfinch of the British library supplied information about the Incunabula Short-Title Catalogue. nicholas smith of the university library, Cambridge, helped us to identify donors of liturgical books, and searched for the fragments in that library. alistair Macgregor sent photographs and details of the ushaw fragments. other administrators supplied information to heather robbins about the various electronic projects under their direction and about the earlier microfilming project undertaken by university Microfilms international. with great patience and editorial acumen, pascale Duhamel read the first reasonable draft. eva Branda revised the footnotes and general bibliography. Both did much of the final checking and formatting for submission to the university of toronto press. andrew hughes toronto, once called York, 2006

This page intentionally left blank

2 lists, principal abbreviations, and references

Paragraph numbers and the Index ¶201 each paragraph or group of paragraphs is numbered, and it is to these numbers that cross-references, marked with ¶, and the index refer. when possible, we have made an attempt to group paragraphs dealing with the same topic under the same number. Certain abbreviated elements of text usually separated by spaces are here joined by dots: this formatting feature ensures that all parts of the abbreviation are kept together in the index. this concatenation is not necessary where sigla are used, as in the lists below, but is occasionally found with bibliographical references, e.g., elB.1924, and more often in references to fonds and manuscript numbers, e.g., gough.liturg.1. Abbrevations and references full bibliographical details are in appendix 3 and the Bibliography. BMC BMl Cao eeBo estC gw iCep istC lMlo M3o MlgB MMBl

Catalogue of Books Printed in the XVIth Century now in the British Museum frere, walter h. Bibliotheca Musico-Liturgica hesbert, rené-Jean Corpus Antiphonalium Officii Early English Books on Line English Short Title Catalogue Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke Inventaire chronologique des éditions parisiennes du XVIe siècle Incunabula Short Title Catalogue hughes, andrew Late Medieval Liturgical Offices hughes, andrew Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office ker, neil Medieval Libraries of Great Britain ker, neil Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries

xviii

Cataloguing Discrepancies

sB stC uMi

procter, francis, and Christopher wordsworth Breviarium ... Sarum Short Title Catalogue University Microfilms International

Manuscript sigla these follow the principles laid out in LMLO (Texts) pages 205–16, where there are extensive lists. the first letter is that of the country. this is followed by an uppercase letter with lowercase letters as necessary to represent the town. similarly, the last element shows the name or location of the library (the word for library is always omitted). England earC eCu eDu elB ell enottu eoB eripM eYC

arundel, Castle (library of the Duke of norfolk) Cambridge, university library Durham, university library london, British library london, lambeth palace library nottingham, university library (rare Books and special Collections) oxford, Bodleian library ripon, Minster library York Minster, Chapter library

Republic of Ireland, Eire rDt Dublin, trinity College library United States the u is followed by a letter for the state. to maintain the principle that three characters should represent the most important towns or libraries, this element is sometimes omitted. uiuu illinois, urbana, university of illinois library ungr new York City, the grolier Club Catalogue references to the 1493 Breviary Below are listed in chronological order the authors or short titles of the principal lists and catalogues used in this study. several older catalogues have been reprinted without revision: these are listed under the original date. others, such as weale’s catalogue revised by Bohatta, are also listed under the date of the revision. full bibliographical details are in appendix 3.

lists, abbreviations, and references

xix

the stC is sometimes referred to as ‘pollard’ or ‘pollard and redgrave.’ these were the chief editors of the first edition. this reference work should not be confused with the British library catalogue of 1924, also edited by pollard. 1715 1719 1749 1793–1803 1826–38 1857 1859–69 1860–5 1867 1870 1872 1880, 1883 1884 1886 1888 1895 1898 1899 1900–7 1908–2004 1910–14 1911 1917 1924 1925 1926 1928 193xx 1932 1937 1942 1954 1954–71 1960 1963

thoresby Maittaire ames; greatly enlarged by hebert and Dibdin, 1810–19 panzer hain, reprinted 1925 lowndes grässe Brunet edouard frère Deschamps (Dictionnaire) ecclesiologist, vol. X (not the same as under 1888) lawley elB.1884: British library Catalogue weale; ed. rev. by Bohatta (1928) ecclesiologist: notes and Queries (see 1872) hain-Copinger proctor, reprinted 1960 Duff ‘the printers ...’ sayle British library Catalogues lepreux Bohatta Liturgische Bibliographie Duff elB.1924: British library Catalogues reprint of hain (1826) Short Title Catalogue (stC.1926) (1st edition) weale (1886), 2nd ed. rev. Bohatta university Microfilms international Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke (gw), reprinted 1968 Bohatta Bibliographie des Breviere, reprinted 1963 sander, reprinted 1969 oates sheppard reprint of proctor (1898–1906) reprint of Bohatta (1937)

xx

Cataloguing Discrepancies

1967 1968 1925 1976 1982 1985 1990 2005

adams reprint of gw (1932) reprint of sander (1942) stC.1976–91 (2nd edition) sessions iCep (Moreau) amiet Coates

estC eeBo istC

English Short-Title Catalogue Early English Books on Line Incunabula Short-Title Catalogue

Illustrations unless otherwise stated the plates are from the Bodleian copy, gough Missals 6. Cover: plate 4.1: plate 4.2: plate 4.3: plate 4.4: plate 4.5: plate 4.6: plate 4.7: plate 7.1: plate 7.2: plate 7.3: plate 7.4 plate 7.5: plate 7.6: plate 7.7: a: b, c, d: e:

the printer’s device of Johannes hamman title-page the colophon and tabula in the Bate copy the colophon in the Bate copy handwritten additions on the verso of the title-page the Becket office in the sarum Breviaries of 1555 and 1556 a compositor’s stick, from Diderot’s Encyclopedia of 1751 incorrect headings in signature 3 the colophon of the sarum Breviary of 1518 missing photographic frames, f.73 and 76v missing photographic frames, f.71 and 72v discontinuity in the Bate copy digital images of ff.209 and 210 detail of plate 7.5 detail of f.330 microfilm microfiche, original and enhanced digital image

¶421 ¶423 ¶425 ¶428 ¶448 ¶448 ¶450 ¶703 ¶707 ¶707 ¶708 ¶710 ¶710 ¶711

lists, abbreviations, and references

plate 7.8: a: b: c: plate 7.9: a: b: c: plate 7.10: a: b, c: d: plate 7.11: plate 7.12: plate 9.1: figure 4.1 figure 4.2: figure 4.3: figure 4.4: figure 4.5:

xxi

detail of f.334 ¶712 microfilm microfiche digital image detail of f.325: spaces for initials; bleedthrough ¶713 microfilm microfiche digital image detail of f.242: spaces for initials; bleedthrough; handwritten psalm number in margin ¶714 microfilm microfiche, original and enhanced digital image incorrect folio number: f.166 printed as 66 ¶715 table of sunday assignations: f.165 (recte 195) ¶716 the printer’s device of françois regnault appendix 2, 1526 the Bodleian fragments, signature 32 ¶426 signature 35 and the inserted leaves ¶436 reusing the leaves of signature 35 ¶436 rearranging the original leaves of signature 35 ¶437 imposing the headings of signature 3 ¶451

Glossary direction line the (imaginary) line on which signature marks are printed edition sometimes used to refer to all copies assigned to a single year. Because of the ambiguity that inevitably attaches to this word for early printed books, we have avoided it in favour of such terms as ‘print run,’ ‘book,’ ‘Breviary,’ ‘printing,’ ‘publication,’ or ‘volume.’ the word ‘issue,’ used by some writers (see ¶452), is similarly questionable. see ¶805. forme the frame into which the pages of type are fastened with quoins imprint material giving information about the printer, date, sponsor, etc. that would include the title-page and colophon and register, and perhaps some of the opening page, if it has relevant information. inventory as in the conventions of manuscript cataloguing, a list of

xxii

Cataloguing Discrepancies

contents within a specific book issue see under ‘edition’ leading strips of lead inserted between words or lines to space the line for justification and the page for length Pica, or Pye, or Pie a section in a Breviary that is essentially an ordo, giving incipits for the liturgical year. after the 15th century, it was often an independent libellus. the name no doubt derives from the smaller script or type used. printer’s furniture the frames and blocks which hold the type and the pages quoins wedges used to hold the pages firmly in the forme register material at the end of a printed book that specifies its structure in signatures signature; gathering; fascicle a collection of bifolia stitched together. the first word is that used principally for printing: the others are more frequent in references to manuscripts. in printed books, each signature is normally given an identifying number or letter at the foot of the first page, with small roman numerals to number the pages in the first half of the signature. the term is sometimes used to refer only to the mark on the first page of the gathering. standing type typeset material, either formes or possibly pages, that is kept for subsequent reuse. stick the small frame into which the compositor inserts the type for a line or lines of text (see plate 4.6) stone the table onto which the printer places the forme for composition and inking sungtexts liturgical texts sung to real melodies: antiphons, invitatories, responsories, hymns, and verses

Cataloguing DisCrepanCies: the printeD York BreviarY of 1493

This page intentionally left blank

3 Cataloguing Discrepancies

¶301 each early printed book must be treated like a manuscript; that is, as a unique copy. and, ideally, to differentiate book from book precisely, every letter in every copy needs to be compared. no bibliographer has the time or funds fully to meet these conditions. gross structural description has to be separated from the essential detail and must inevitably be the bibliographer’s normal method. at which point overall description descends into detail must depend on the individual book and the purpose of the catalogue, but a certain amount of detail will normally be required. it is our contention that catalogues rely too much on the former and pay too little attention to the detail that differentiates one copy of a book from another. our investigation began with a project to compile a checklist of early printed english Breviaries, mostly from the 16th century, and to address the question as to why there were dozens of printings in less than a century. heather robbins and andrew hughes had been working on this issue for months, going steadily backwards, or at least, like sisyphus, not progressing. Catalogues of printed sources: their problems ¶302 a comparison between early printed Breviaries themselves and the most obvious catalogue, stC, the Short Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland and of English Books Printed Abroad 1475– 1640, proved frustrating since often the book did not conform to the stC description.1 another resource, which we hoped would solve or at least throw light upon many of the problems, was the microfilm collection published by University Microfilms International (uMi). to our dismay, we were presented

4

Cataloguing Discrepancies

with another set of discrepancies. further incongruities appeared upon examination of the descriptions presented in the online collection of uMi facsimiles produced by Early English Books Online (eeBo) and the English Short Title Catalogue (estC), an online bibliographic database. of the descriptions in the stC, on the uMi films, in eeBo, and in estC, it is far from clear which have been borrowed from which earlier ones, which have been prepared afresh, which have been prepared from an examination of the books in situ, which prepared from the films, and which from the computer facsimiles. trying to solve some of these puzzles, we turned to catalogues prepared before the stC volumes. the most recent of such other descriptions are found in the catalogues of amiet, Bohatta, and sayle. often this process confused the matter more, adding another layer of inconsistency. the same proved true in the examination of even earlier descriptions, such as those in the Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke (gw) for the incunabula, and going back to Maittaire in 1719 and hain in 1828. ¶303 from numerous passages throughout the book, the reader will sense some of the problems we had with the catalogues. even a brief perusal of the introduction to appendix 2, and of the detailed descriptions we have taken from other sources, will be sufficient to illustrate the discrepancies. in the reports of otherwise reliable cataloguers one description may be incompatible with another that purports to be of the same book; copies of the same printing with minute differences are confused; some books are defective so that identifying them securely is difficult; associating them with imprecisely described locations (e.g., lacking shelfmarks) is often impossible; a print from a particular year may reuse parts of an earlier print and incorporate parts that belong to books of other uses, making it impossible to describe concisely or assign it to a printing of this or that use or date. we attempt to reveal the difficulties of earlier scholars. these difficulties were twofold: first, in describing liturgical and other kinds of books; and, second, in devising consistent methods to identify unambiguously copies of books that may have identical publishers, places, and dates of printing, yet may differ in small details which are easily overlooked and confused. one simple misstatement or misreading, such as 2o instead of 8o, can cause ghost volumes to appear authentic. unless the reader has a strong desire to understand every last inconsistency, the details of such mishaps laid out here may be skipped. nevertheless, these descriptions have some historiographical interest. More practically, however, they show

Cataloguing Discrepancies

5

where improvements may be made: the simple addition of a sign to differentiate a catalogue from a page number; a careful use of terms such as folio, page, and opening; an indication as to what information is simply copied from an earlier work and what comes from examination of the book itself; a judgment as to the value of earlier descriptions. as our text progresses, it will become clear that consistent and informed procedures of description for liturgical books are needed: hence our practical suggestions in chapter 8 and in the section on the printed books in appendix 2. ¶304 inconsistencies in earlier publications from the early 18th to the 20th century are of course to be expected. nevertheless, they often seem extreme. Many of the problems in the various reference works are the result of a number of factors. to begin with, many of the locations in older references are now different. Books once in private collections such as that of henry Bradshaw are surely now in the major libraries. stC is far too abbreviated to list previous owners, so a large job remains simply to coordinate older locations with stC. this task has not even been started. enquiries to the major libraries in england about the donation of such liturgical books have so far been largely unproductive. another cause of discrepancies in descriptions is most likely a failure to examine the books page by tedious page to reveal differences caused by stop-press changes or mistakes in photography. But given multiple printings, examining every copy of every volume in that manner would seem impractical. for the authors of this study, it at first seemed unnecessary: naively, we thought that surely all copies of the same printing should be identical. we will return to that question. a final factor is a lack of expertise in late 15th- and early 16th-century liturgy. But intimate familiarity with the medieval liturgy is a lifelong discipline in itself, and bibliographers and cataloguers have to master their own frustrating and complex problems. such failures are understandable and forgivable. we do not wish to emphasize the failures of earlier catalogues. in fact, although there are some incomprehensible statements, and assertions whose origin cannot be imagined, there seem to be few real errors, except in the erroneous attribution of this feature to that print or copy. some information that is clearly incorrect stems simply from copying earlier information without fully checking with the original or examining how that information was derived. Cataloguers, like those who write entries for dictionaries, do not have the time to research anew every topic or every copy of every book. the books themselves are repetitive,

6

Cataloguing Discrepancies

often differing only in minute detail. similarly, like many reference texts and dictionaries, catalogues are repetitive, one volume or edition reproducing without further research or documentation the statements of earlier publications or editions. to research and revise afresh every entry in order to correct or add only a character or two is uneconomical. The 1493 Breviary ¶305 the volume we selected was the 1493 printing of the York Breviary. of the two extant copies one is complete, or apparently so, and the other, out of several hundred leaves, lacks only the final two. these circumstances, we thought, would make our task of preparing an adequate catalogue manageable. Despite this limitation, dealing with the catalogues just for this single book proved daunting. although by objective observation of the two copies many details are unambiguous, some previous descriptions of those details are so different as to be incomprehensible. unless new information should emerge, we can only speculate as to the reason for these puzzles. there are some minute differences even between these two copies, which are illustrated in succeeding chapters. such differences might confound hasty surveys, underlining one of the general conclusions we have reached: ideally, such early liturgical books ought to be studied with similar attention to detail as might be accorded their manuscript predecessors, with care taken to note the most subtle features. the 1493 Breviary is attractive for another reason: it is one of the very few english printed Breviaries that has been edited in modern times. lawley’s late 19th-century edition, in the surtees society series, is one of the most important items of secondary literature.2 his accounts of 1493 and the later printings of the York Breviary are concise and factual, but with little attempt to describe the liturgical context. to build upon the work of lawley, we have included information about every known Breviary and antiphonal of York use, manuscript or printed. Descriptions of the prints later than 1493, as can be inferred from preceding paragraphs about early printed liturgical books in general, are not easily analysed. Dealing with the print of 1493 required examination of the literature on incunabula. we have assembled every piece of information about the relatives of 1493 in a format that, we hope, clarifies where confusion and discrepancy are still to be found. in fact, the bibliography of material for 1493 encompasses most of the reference works relevant to early printed books in general. it is the result of our initial efforts to deal with the whole repertory of early printed books. heather robbins comprehensively lays

Cataloguing Discrepancies

7

out and describes with annotations the relationships among the bibliography of printed and photographic and digital resources. we hope this information will prove useful for manuscript scholars who need to navigate these difficult texts in order to work with early printed books. ¶306 for the scholar of early liturgical books there would seem little purpose in trying to ascertain which of the extant witnesses of the 1493 Breviary is in fact the object of the various catalogues listed in appendix 3, other than a compulsive desire to be comprehensive. from the bibliographical and historiographical point of view, however, there is a good deal of interest in pursuing the details of the innumerable discrepancies. at least, they may alert other readers to potential problems, including the accuracy of the information, and the different conventions in supplying that information. in order to deal with the 1493 Breviary satisfactorily, we begin by describing the known witnesses in general. our descriptions are objective, deriving almost entirely from personal examination of the material. one of the authors, Matthew salisbury, examined both complete copies of the 1493 book in their english libraries and refined certain matters visible only in the books themselves. in appendix 1, he has constructed a structural inventory of the two complete copies, and a comparative inventory that shows in parallel columns the number of the photographic and digital frames and images, in all of which there are several defects, such as poor exposure and openings photographed twice or omitted, that can make using those resources problematic. ¶307 Complete details of the witnesses including full bibliographical references are in appendix 2, presented in a format devised especially for cataloguing such material. as the reader may surmise from the preceding sentence, we do not find existing methods of cataloguing medieval liturgical books entirely satisfactory. although the secondary literature is listed in this appendix, it is often so confusing that we advocate setting it aside at least in the initial stage of preparing a catalogue. hence its absence in our opening discussion of the 1493 print. Yet some texts, such as Duff’s very useful Fifteenth-century English books of 1917, have not yet been superseded by more recent publications. Catalogues of the manuscripts ¶308 as noted above, we list all sources of the York office liturgy both in manuscript and printed Breviaries and antiphonals. the manuscripts have been described elsewhere, most of them several times. the relevant bibliography for these witnesses is relatively small and reliable, compared

8

Cataloguing Discrepancies

with that for the printed books. we include as much basic description as is available from published sources and personal knowledge of the books. Most of the manuscripts are known directly to hughes from earlier work in the British isles, and all were examined more recently by salisbury. The social context ¶309 Despite our thorough examination of the book itself, its context, and of the literature relevant to both, we are left with numerous questions. Most of these pertain to cultural and literary issues that we did not intend to address. for printing technology, gaskell’s A new introduction to bibliography was invaluable. although this author begins his discussion with 1500, it is said to be ‘generally applicable to the earlier period’ of incunabula. John feather’s chapter ‘literacy, print and culture in early modern england’ and other passages in his recent edition of A history of British publishing set the scene and gave us useful information about the book trade and stationers in Canterbury and York and elsewhere. stacey gee’s article on the importation of books from the Continent to York gave additional information about the stationers, including primary sources, and by sheer chance allowed us to identify an early 18th-century reference that had seemed untraceable. Both feather and gee, from whom the following information is summarized, describe the situation with respect to the commercial and traditional forces that were at work.3 feather notes the importance of vernacular and popular books, which could ‘command a large market.’4 in York, ‘it is possible that the first press ... was operated by frederick freez’ in the 1490s, and about the same time and into the early 16th century, goes and Milner (or ursyn Mylner) began printing.5 the latter produced the Festum Visitacionis Beate Marie Virginis and ‘a supplement to the York breviary called the Officia Nova’ around 1513. the latter is an eight-page libellus with the monastic offices for Becket and edmund, both archbishops of Canterbury. sessions says it is ‘York’s earliest extant example of two-colour printing.’6 the typographical quality and the registration of the red print are quite poor. these two feasts are not for the secular use of York, since they are monastic. in second vespers for Becket, where Ad Magnificat should be, the compositor has put Ad Matutinas.7 this serious liturgical error suggests that York printers were not familiar with liturgical books and is precisely the kind of error that can mislead cataloguers into a confusing description.

Cataloguing Discrepancies

9

¶310 when York printers in the early 16th century venture into the liturgical field, then, it is chiefly with small libelli for ‘new feasts.’ we have no evidence of the production of full liturgical books.8 a first important question is therefore: why were so many liturgical books printed abroad? that it should have been so after the reformation is obvious. there were excellent printers in england from the 1470s. But the printing of liturgical books, especially if the traditional manuscript formats and colours were to be emulated, was an extremely complex task. Colin Clair expresses the situation thus: for some time after the introduction of printing into england the craft was carried on by only a small number of printers, who were quite unable to meet the demands of the church for service books, and moreover were not sufficiently advanced technically to undertake this kind of work, which needed both red and black printing. english booksellers and publishers were therefore obliged to call on the printers of the Continent for service books. there was no law at that time preventing the importation of such books. paris and rouen were the main centres of the trade with england in liturgical books. not only had the french printers greater experience in this form of printing, and far more attractive illustrations, but they could supply the books at a price with which the english printers could not compete, for both the cost of vellum and paper, as well as that of wood-engraving, was far less in france than in england.9

sessions also comments on the reputation for accuracy and speed associated with the rouen printers.10 significant too, no doubt, are the longstanding liturgical relationships, dating from the Conquest, between norman and english uses. ¶311 a second important question, applicable to early printed Breviaries in general, is: why were there so many printings, essentially the same, at least once the new feasts had been incorporated? in the 1860s edouard frère estimated that there were 100,000 altars in england that needed service books, and this estimate does not even include parish churches and chapels. he ventures that at the beginning of the reformation some 250,000 service books were in use in english churches.11 such figures may seem extravagant. Yet another more recent estimate by owain tudor edwards suggests, for the same period, that there would have been some 24,000 antiphonals alone.12 an antiphonal is simply one of almost a dozen different types of liturgical books required in every church. plenty

10

Cataloguing Discrepancies

of evidence exists for us readily to accept that the number is huge: hence the number of prints. The stationers ¶312 some exploration of the commercial circumstances was necessary. when the books are defective as to the place and date of printing, for example, our only source of information may be documents about the importation of books from the Continent, about which sessions and gee have written. stationers were responsible for such imports. the conventional way of referring to the stationers or to those who ordered the printing of early books is with the preposition ‘for.’ the original words expensis or impensis simply imply that the stationers paid the expenses of the printing. the stationer egmondt paid for the printing of the 1493 Breviary, but see ¶401. later, John gaschet paid for and imported many books.13 John Ga[s]chet ¶313 Duff, and more recently sessions and gee, report on gaschet’s life and business affairs.14 gaschet was a stationer in York and hereford and then in paris, first mentioned in a colophon in 1509. he was the sponsor of the three publications of the York Breviary, in 1517, 1526, and 1533: ‘at least six editions of service books were printed in rouen and paris and then sent to gachet for sale in [York].’15 Deschamps, in his Dictionnaire of 1870, says the Breviary of 1526 was ‘imprimé par J. Gachet,’ but this is surely a misreading of the abbreviation imp. for impensis. as Duff and the list of printed sources show, the name is spelled in various ways: gachet, gatchet(t), Jo. gauchet, ioannis gaschet, J. gaschet, ioannis gaschet(t)i. since this publisher does not appear for our purposes until 1517, he is clearly not associated with the 1493 book. Yet the fragments of this volume in Cambridge have the words ‘liber J[o]annis gedge.’ Did gaschet own a copy of the 1493 Breviary?

¶314 the cultural, commercial, and social circumstances of incunabula are themselves vast and complex subjects. our study is a bibliographical and historiographical account of the descriptive process as much as a catalogue piece of the two known copies of a single Breviary. arguing from the discrepancies in earlier catalogues, we speculate that in recent centuries other copies were once known to bibliographers. we also draw some tentative conclusions about the practices of early

Cataloguing Discrepancies

11

printers with respect to liturgical books. these conclusions may need to be revisited for modification or reinforcement when adequate, careful catalogues and inventories of other early liturgical books have been prepared. our purpose is to provide these resources for a single printing and to lay the groundwork for future such studies, so that the social and liturgical contexts can be more readily approached.

4 Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

¶401 to examine the problem of cataloguing and inventorying printed liturgical books, we take as the principal object of our enquiry the 1493 printing of the York Breviary, printed in venice by Johannes hammanus, hamman, who later called himself J. hertzog. his printer’s device appears on the cover of the present publication. two copies of the book and several sets of fragments remain. the book is printed in black and red, 2 columns with 36 lines each and with running headings. in the late 19th century, lawley edited the book for the surtees society.1 this information is probably all that can be stated without some element of uncertainty or ambiguity. to exemplify the kind of difficulty that typifies our enquiry, let us examine another issue normally presented with the bibliographical description of an early printed book. who paid for it, or for whom was the book printed? without citing the evidence, lawley – and only lawley of some thirty or more descriptions – says that two sponsors were responsible for the expense:2 gerardus Barrevelt and frederick egmundt (some catalogues refer to franciscus de egmondt, rather than frederick).3 also without evidence, in his entry for hamman, Duff associates these two men with a ‘considerable number’ of service books printed by hamman for York and sarum between 1493 and 1495.4 since the 1493 publication is the only York book printed between those years, the implication is that both men were involved. But in his entries for both Barrevelt and egmundt the collaboration is only for sarum service books from 1494.5 and the imprint, transcribed in appendix 2 under 1493 and reproduced in plate 4.2, mentions only impensis … egmundt ‘at egmundt’s expense.’ Duff’s evidence taken altogether points to egmundt as the sole underwriter. in this case, then, until

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

13

other evidence available to lawley emerges and proves reliable, we must trust the original document. the witnesses ¶402 we first set out the bare description in what is perhaps, for most scholars, the most readily available and authoritative reference book for early printed english books in general, the most recent edition of the stC. the characteristics and, sadly, some defects of this work for liturgical cataloguing are set out in appendix 3. indeed, katharine f. pantzer, editor of the second edition of the stC, admits to some inadequacies (see ¶807). with respect to the Breviary in question, the second edition (1976) essentially repeats the entry of the 1926 edition, under the heading ‘York Breviaries.’ it gives the following information, under 15856 (the stC number): British library fragments for folios 49–56, 129–135 oxford lacks the last two leaves Cambridge fragments ushaw fragments st helen’s church, [ashby de la Zouch] the British library catalogue published in 1924, elB.1924, states that the leaves missing from the oxford copy are ff.463 and 464, a detail not repeated, for good reason, in stC.1926 and stC.1976. as we shall see, the numbering of these leaves is a matter of considerable ambiguity. our inventories will clarify such matters. two copies of the book are therefore extant. one is in the Bodleian library, lacking the last two leaves. as we discovered when we approached the authorities at st helen’s, that copy is now in the Bate Collection in the library of loughborough university. we should like to thank John feather for so readily answering our queries and providing useful details about the book. the details of the structures of these books will emerge in the following paragraphs but may be most readily observed in the two inventories of appendix 1. The Bodleian copy ¶403 recently, alan Coates, assisted by numerous other scholars, published A catalogue of books printed in the fifteenth century now in the Bodleian Library (2005). although Coates himself may not have prepared the description of

14

Cataloguing Discrepancies

1493, we will continue to refer to the catalogue under his name. a vast improvement on everything that has gone before, this reference tool would have helped greatly in our earlier work. But Coates too contributes to some confusion. to the list of fragments just cited, Coates adds a new set, recently removed from bindings in the Bodleian library. they now have the shelfmark Inc. c. I4.9. unfortunately, Coates refers to these fragments as the ‘second copy.’ his ‘first copy’ is naturally the book in the Bodleian library, the subject of his catalogue. the inventory – that is, the list of contents that precedes the descriptions of the first and second copies – is, however, not that of the ‘first copy,’ the one in the Bodleian, but that of the ‘ideal copy,’ a fictional extrapolation by conjecture from the sources actually inventoried.6 in this case, the ideal copy is identical to the Bate copy, to which Coates makes no reference. within that inventory are frequent references to lawley’s edition of the book, made from the Bodleian copy. to refer without cautionary comment to that admittedly incomplete survival in the context of an ideal copy is, to say the least, confusing. Moreover, the notion of an ideal copy is inappropriate for liturgical books, which could always be expanded by additional material.7 they were records of an ever-changing performance, just as were copies of shakespeare’s plays. as noted in several places, the last two leaves of the last signature are missing, so that the book ends with f.478v. The Bate copy ¶404 several features distinguish the Bate copy. first, some signature letters present in the Bodleian copy are missing. we suspect their omission was the result of insufficient inking, a matter that causes confusion in relation to other apparently missing folio numbers in the photographic reproductions of the Bodleian copy. second, and more striking, two signatures have been reversed in binding. within each signature, the order of leaves has been preserved. although this arrangement of signatures may have been the one in which the book was originally but erroneously bound, other evidence of an overly casual rebinding may be found in the trimming of some leaves, such that the folio numbers are no longer legible. Details of these mishaps are in later discussions, and in the inventories. third, the main feast and the translation of thomas Becket have been defaced with cross-hatching, whereas the Bodleian copy is undamaged. last, the Bate copy is the sole witness to the material following the colophon, in effect a table of contents listing the major liturgical festivals

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

15

in chronological order, followed by a full list by month of the saints’ days. figure 4.2 shows the beginning of this table, printed on the last two leaves of the last signature, so that the book ends with f.480. The fragments ¶405 as we describe the fragments, we give the running heads, with the heading on the verso separated from that of the recto by //. the British library fragments (shelfmark ia.23357) there are two sets of fragments: ff.49–56 and ff.129–135. the editor of elB.1924 describes them as a single fragment, and gives the signature number only for the first set: 145 × 99 mm. a fragment consisting of leaves 49–56 (quire 7), 129–135, taken from a binding. leaves 49–56 cropped, leaf 129 much mutilated. ia.23357

the first set must be the whole signature (i.e., 4 bifolia; 49–56 inclusive) and, as is noted in the description, it is signature 7, from the temporale, although the first two leaves transmit the feast of the translation of st william. in ¶411, we comment on the presence of this saint’s feast in the temporale. the following display itemizes these leaves, with the liturgical designation in the headers: signature 7, ff.49 & 50 signature 7, ff.51 & 52 signature 7, f.53 signature 7, f.55 signature 7, ff.55 & 56

heading In translatione // Sancti Wilelmi epi heading In octava // Epiphanie Domini. heading Rubrica post octa. Epiphanie // De dominicis faciendis heading Rubrica generalis // Dominica.1.post octavas heading Dominica prima // post octavas Epiphanie

the second set must be the whole signature minus the last leaf (i.e. 3 bifolia and one leaf), and is signature 17, also from the temporale: signature 17, f.129 signature 17, f.132 sic signature 17, f.131 signature 17, f.132 signature 17, f.133 signature 17, f.134 signature 17, f.135

heading In vigilia // Ascensionis Domini heading In festo // Ascensionis Domini heading In festo Ascensionis Domini // feria.vi heading Sabato // Dominica infra octavas heading Dominica // infra octa Ascensionis heading feria.iiii. // in octava Ascensionis heading In octava Ascensionis // In vigilia Penthecostes

16

Cataloguing Discrepancies

the Cambridge university library fragments (oates #2035) ¶406 these leaves are ff.278, 279, and 280. oates says that ff.278 & 279 are ‘conjoint,’ indicating that they form a bifolium. the most likely circumstance, therefore, is that they are the middle bifolium of signature 35. examination proves this to be the case. in fact, they form the second (middle) bifolium of two bifolia that were added to an original quaternion, as we shall see later, and the other leaf, f.280, is the second leaf of the first bifolium added. whether their dislocated state is due to the fact that they were inserted into an existing signature is impossible to determine. signature 35 leaf 5, f.278 signature 35 leaf 6, f.279 signature 35 leaf 7, f.280

heading Commune // unius confessoris heading Commune // plurimorum confessorum heading Commune // unius virginis

oates also mentions the words ‘liber J[o]annis gedge,’ presumably written on one of these leaves. Could this be the York stationer, John gaschet, whom we discussed in the introduction? the ushaw College fragments ¶407 these two leaves are the endpapers in peter lombard’s Sententiarum textus (Basel: l.hornken and adam peter de langendorff, 20 Jan 1516), shelfmark Xviii.C.5.8.8 they are ff.161 and 162 of the Breviary (the latter numbered 62; see ¶442), one at each end of the book. a large corner of leaf 161 is torn off, so that the underlying text of the book is visible. they are consecutive leaves: signature 21, leaf 1, f.161 signature 21, leaf 2, f.62 (recte 162)

heading Dominica iii Septembris heading Septembris

the Bodleian library fragments (shelfmark inc. c. i4.9)9 ¶408 these are isolated leaves recently identified in Coates. he describes them by using the leaf and the signature in which it belongs. to that identification we have added, in the display below, the folio number and heading (the heading before the // is of course that on the verso preceding the leaf in question). signature 32, leaf 1 signature 32, leaf 4 signature 32, leaf 6 signature 32, leaf 7

f.249 f.250 f.254 f.255

heading Die dominica // Ad vesperas heading Ad primam // Ad tertiam heading Ad sextam // Ad nonam heading Ad nonam // Ad nonam

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers signature k, leaf 1 signature k, leaf 2 signature k, leaf 7 signature k, leaf 8

f.373 f.374 f.379 f.380

17

heading In festo // S. Petri & Pauli apost. heading In festo // S. Pauli apost. heading In translatione // S. Martini epi. heading Dominica infra octa. apostolorum

from Coates’s formula 321, 4, 6, 7 for the first set, it would appear that these fragments are four single leaves, one-half of each bifolium of signature 32. when we discuss the size of the leaves, we shall see that this is not so (see ¶426). the fragments are from the psalter. in the second set, from the sanctorale, the formula k1, 2, 7, 8 suggests the same situation, but using both halves of two bifolia of the signature. once again, however, these are not four separate leaves. the leaves missing from the last signature of the 1507 print in Cambridge are also 1, 2, 7, and 8, but these are of signature z, containing the office of st katherine, and thus this circumstance is a coincidence. lawleY’s eDition ¶409 in 1880 and 1883, stephen lawley edited the complete text, in two volumes, for the surtees society issues of 1871 and 1882. lawley’s account of the owners and history of the book is repeated, a little more concisely, by Duff:10 we expand this information in ¶413–16. using the Bodleian book, lawley ‘copied [it] with all its errors of punctuation and spelling, with no attempt to construct a perfect text [i.e., an urtext] by correcting it.’11 lawley prints lists compiled by other scholars, which cite eleven other printed Breviaries of York, complete and incomplete, and all of later date,12 but does not mention the other complete copy or the several fragments of the 1493 book. although its location in ashby de la Zouch is not stated, the earliest certain reference to the Bate copy is in elB.1924, where the Tabula, the table of contents which appears only in the Bate copy, is cited (but see ¶413). ¶410 although the information about the copy lawley used is correct,13 some aspects could contribute to confusion. after describing the titlepage, he moves to the colophon, about which he says ‘imprint in red on the verso of page 478.’ given the Babel of terms we shall meet later, the use of the word ‘page’ here is unfortunate. it is folio 478 verso, although not, as we shall see, the 478th leaf. according to lawley, the lettering on the book reads 1498, another potential source of error. his description includes a brief history of its printer and its owners: taking the name of its last owner, who bequeathed it to the Bodleian

18

Cataloguing Discrepancies

library, it is now gough Missals 6. although the word ‘Missals’ is occasionally omitted, it is necessary because there are other gough collections. But it is cause for yet more confusion, since the book is not a Mass book. after a brief collation,14 lawley claims that ‘both by signatures and by numbering the book proclaims itself complete, with no hiatus.’ the numbering of the folios, however, is not, as lawley says, ‘very defective between 190 and 198’ but defective in several places, and may call into question that the book is in fact entirely complete. lawley states that on the title-page, as well as call numbers and a reference to a previous owner, is the notice ‘this is not noted in Maittaire, therefore very rare, w.(?) ames.’ he then states ‘that this is an error we have shown above, p.viii. note. [sic].’ the correct reference in lawley is in fact to page xii, note 2. and this notice is not on the title-page but on one of the pages preceding the title-page that were presumably added when the book was bound in the nineteenth century.15 none of these pages is present on the microfilm or the digital reproduction. the identification of ames proved difficult for us, even with the help of the reference by Deschamps to ‘ames (typogr. antiq. iii, p.1437),’ and in view of the (?) in the notice perhaps the identification was uncertain also for lawley: rather than one beginning with w, Joseph is the correct first name. Deschamps does not refer to the printing of 1493. see the entries in the Bibliography, appendix 3, under ames and Deschamps. some of the handwritten notes on the title-page of the Bodleian volume are now mostly illegible (plate 4.1), perhaps in the same hand as the additional material on the verso of the title-page. this latter material transmits information about lauds and vespers of st nicholas and material for st John of Beverley (see plate 4.4). no cataloguer prior to Coates, in 2005, refers to this addition. the Contents of the witnesses ¶411 the book is a single-volume Breviary, of the kind sometimes described as a totum because it includes the whole of the liturgical year and all the relevant sections. these are the temporale, for the Christological feasts of the church year, the kalendar and related rubrics and chronological tables, the psalter, Common of saints, and the sanctorale. it does not of course include the chants (that is, the music). the sections appear in the order just outlined. the position of the kalendar within the book is a characteristic of British origin.16 elsewhere, and in later examples of British books, often printed on the Continent,

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

19

the kalendar was at the beginning. the order of the Common of saints and sanctorale, however, is not that of many York manuscripts, in which the sanctorale is before the Common.17 the contents of the book are almost entirely conventional, including, of course, saints specific to York. somewhat unusual is the position of the feasts of the translation of st william of York and the Deposition of st edward, king, in the temporale within the octave of epiphany. this placement undoubtedly results from the difficulty of realizing these important fixed-date feasts in the context of the variable number of sundays after epiphany.18 precedent for placing saints’ feasts within the temporale is well known: the four great feasts after Christmas are placed in that section of liturgical books for a similar reason, the complexity of the liturgical observances during this period. ¶412 one of those four great feasts is that of thomas Becket, on 29 December. in the years around 1538, this office was removed or defaced in many British liturgical books, in response to henry viii’s injunctions.19 in the Bodleian copy of the 1493 Breviary, this feast is undamaged, an indication either that the book was not in england in the sixteenth century or that it was hidden, or that henry viii’s commissioners did not extend their ravages to the north of england. the Becket office was in fact the starting point for the large project of which this study is a part. Being a later office whose texts, unlike those of the older liturgy, could vary, it can be useful in determining relationships between sources. a few certain and some tentative conclusions can be deduced from an examination of the Becket office. in particular, for instance, it uses a different set of lessons from the sarum use, and a slightly different set of antiphons and responsories. kay slocum has published editions, with chants and translations of the various forms, and presents tabular comparison of the sarum, York, and original monastic uses.20 sherry reames has dealt similarly with translations and details of the translation office for Becket.21 the lessons for Becket’s main feast, in fact a unique choice from the various accounts of his life, allow us to identify York books. the historY of the witnesses ¶413 tracing the subsequent history, or as some would ambiguously term it the provenance,22 of the books after their initial use to their present locations is of little importance in preparing an adequate catalogue. nevertheless the peregrinations of a book may contribute to clearing up ambiguity in earlier descriptions and are certainly of general interest.

20

Cataloguing Discrepancies

no information about the history of the Bate copy is available, so that how it arrived in ashby de la Zouch must remain an unanswered question. the first explicit and unambiguous record of its presence in ashby is in Duff (1917). a coincidence of names however – and perhaps it is no more than that – suggests that a prosopographical search might be rewarding: william la Zouche (the family takes the e) was archbishop of York from 1342 to 1352. there is still an archbishop Zouche’s chapel in the Minster. only lawley attempts a history of the Bodleian book.23 in his account there are numerous large gaps, unexplained and unexplored. to fill these gaps will no doubt require extensive archival work, much of which will probably have to be in the records of York Minster. a few years after lawley’s edition, James raine produced A catalogue of the printed books in the library of the Dean and Chapter of York (1896). in his introduction, raine refers to one of the principal personages, fothergill, but without tying him to any book in particular: in the list of books, he associates fothergill with three copies of the 1526 print (¶416). according to lawley, however, he was involved in the travels of the Bodleian book. a commission to have the York Breviary printed must have emanated from the Minster. we have no information as to how many copies came off the press, but they surely cannot all have been intended for use at the Minster: they were for distribution in the diocese. no evidence suggests that either of our books was ever used at the Minster. ¶414 for the Bodleian copy all the evidence is on the title-page, plate 4.1. Between the printed title and the legible handwriting in the lower half of the page are lines now largely illegible (see ¶421). at the top of the page is the formulation B.t.11 (or as we shall see more accurately B.t.ii) followed by .425* and above the letter k (possibly h). edward Maunde thompson reports that the pressmarks of York are ‘recognisable,’ but his examples are all of the abbey of st Mary’s, York, and thus not relevant to the secular institutions in which the Breviary might have been kept or used.24 the first of these additions, B.t…, resembles the pressmarks of various libraries, although these usually have an arabic or roman numeral as the second element. we were not able to trace this pressmark in the very scarce published material on such notations.25 Curiously, the only pressmarks known to us with a letter in the first and second elements are those of the library at York Minster (see appendix 2 under printed Books, passim). But the Minster is not aware of any such mark as the one on our title-page.26 finally, an enquiry of richard sharpe at oxford produced a convincing explanation. we will reveal this shortly, along with the explanation of the .425*.

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

21

the significance of the k remains unknown. the significance of the large 5 at the right-hand margin is also unknown, although lawley offers an explanation. preceding the 5, but clearly in a different hand and ink, is the inscription e libris Rad. Thoresby (1698) pr. lawley interprets the pr. and the subsequent 5 as ‘price 5s’: the s if once present is no longer visible in photographic reproductions, or on the book itself, and was perhaps lost in a subsequent binding. the different hand and ink suggest that the 5 (and thus the possible s) were independent: it resembles more the style of the pressmark elements just described. what then of the pr.? ¶415 ralph thoresby, 1658–1725, a Yorkshire antiquarian and topographer (not typographer) was raised a presbyterian. perhaps a social historian of that era can shed some light as to whether a presbyterian in 1698 would have added pr to his name. about 1699 he ‘committed to the established church.’27 how thoresby might have come by the book we do not know, but his deep interest in antiquities and learning and in viewing collections would predispose him to finding such material. his diary, published posthumously in 1830, and his own dense and comprehensive catalogue of 1715 may offer clues. perhaps in his travels to the low Countries in connection with the wool trade he discovered the book abroad, where it may have been taken for safekeeping during the reformation. that it had been taken abroad would explain its undamaged state: the Bate copy, being defaced, must have been in england. another coincidence of names is intriguing: a John of thoresby was archbishop of York after william la Zouche, from 1352 to 1374. Because of this former connection with the Minster, the book had perhaps been in the family’s possession since the 16th century. thoresby established a large museum devoted to a great variety of material and, clearly, a large number of books. the catalogue of this collection, dated 1715, mentions the 1493 book. as the very first reference, it deserves to be cited:28 Breviarium secundum usum ecclesie Eboracensis Anglicane. impress. Venetiis, an. 1493. Octavo. this is perfect and a great Curiosity, containing the Temporale, p.1. Calendarium Psalterium, p.209. Commune, p.265. and Sanctorale, p.310.

thoresby died in 1725. lawley reports that his library passed to Marmaduke fothergill.29 the Dictionary of National Biography reports ‘the printed books were sold separately [from the collection which passed to thoresby’s son].’ Yet, according to the published list of book sales in

22

Cataloguing Discrepancies

england the library of ralph thoresby was sold in 1764:30 this must surely refer to the son and cannot involve fothergill, who died in 1731. evidence that this book was in thoresby’s collection and then in fothergill’s is on the title-page (see ¶414) and lawley’s statement that the list of contents at the foot of the title-page is ‘in fothergill’s hand’: lawley had compared numerous letters known to have been written by fothergill. raine also comments that many of the books in fothergill’s library were ‘disfigured by his somewhat unscholarlike hand.’31 ¶416 as for fothergill, the Dictionary of National Biography is silent. lawley and raine must be our witnesses. another Yorkshireman, fothergill was ‘one of our earliest liturgical scholars, and made the history and the composition of the prayer Book of the Church of england his chief study.’32 six years after his death in 1731 his widow gave his library, some 1500 volumes, to the Minster, where ‘it has been preserved … to the present [1896].’ Yet, according to the list of sales just mentioned, fothergill’s library was sold in 1781.33 it contained ‘an invaluable series of liturgical Mss. and books, among which are many of the service books in use … prior to the reformation.’34 as with thoresby, fothergill compiled a catalogue. in this, the letter e was assigned to Liturgiae.35 other than fothergill’s alleged handwriting on the title-page, then, there is no direct evidence that the Bodleian copy was in fothergill’s possession. indeed, the evidence points in the other direction. fothergill’s e does not appear in the 1493 Breviary. furthermore, there is no record that the book was ever in York Minster: raine’s huge catalogue of the Minster library, published in 1896, does not mention it, referring only to three copies of the 1526 print. raine’s references are as follows:36 BreviariuM – eboracense. pars hyemalis, F. imp. 8vo. – id. F. imp. 8vo – id. sanctorale (ex Breviario) F. 8vo.

Parisiis, F. Regnault, 1526

the Fs before imp. refer to fothergill, and the other one to franciscus regnault. these books are listed in appendix 2. the fact that all these, if Id. is to be trusted, are winter volumes, makes it extremely unlikely that the last two were somehow confused with the 1493 volume. the independent sanctorale, however, lends credence to the ideas suggested in ¶435, 440, 444–5 to explain the different numberings of the 1493 sanctorale. according to lawley, the next owner after fothergill was edward Jacob; he points to a footnote in richard gough’s British topography which

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

23

mentions Jacob, but only with respect to another book. Coates gives the evidence for Jacob’s ownership, which is on an endleaf not reproduced in any of the photographic resources: R.G. 1789 e libris Edw. Jacob.37 this date is confirmed in the list of book sales.38 from Jacob, then, the book passed to richard gough, who donated it to the Bodleian library. Quite by chance, when we presented our enquiry about the B.t.11.425* pressmark, richard sharpe had on his desk another book from gough’s collection. this had the mark B.t.i and 203. sharpe says ‘i should guess that the letters represent British topography, … divided into series i and ii with running numbers.’39 since we know now that the 425* belongs with the B.t.ii, even though it is written in smaller letters, we may perhaps conclude that the k or h above which it sits was already on the page when gough added his reference. at the moment lawley is the only witness we know of to these transactions, at least with respect to 1493. since the book is now in the gough collection in the Bodleian, only for the last transaction is there independent confirmation. practically everything remains to be done to provide a more coherent history. Despite the lack of evidence, was either of the books ever used in York Minster? how did the Bate copy arrive in ashby de la Zouch? how did the Bodleian copy escape the defacing carried out in the reformation? how did thoresby obtain the Bodleian copy? if it passed to fothergill in 1725, and fothergill’s library went to York in 1736, how was it in the possession of edward Jacob before 1789? how can one explain the date of 1764 for the sale of thoresby’s books, and the date of 1781 for fothergill’s? sustained research in the archives of York Minster and the other published literature and in prosopography may yield some answers. fortunately, it is not necessary to have answers to these questions in order to provide an accurate catalogue and inventory. Material CharaCteristiCs of the witnesses ¶417 here, in addition to describing some details of the book, we focus on the different ways in which various cataloguers have described the details of the 1493 volume. the differences are not simply those of formatting their entries, but of facts. sometimes the differences in ‘facts’ are inexplicable. if, in the following paragraphs, the reader should wonder which copy is being described and finds our text of no help, a most important central issue of this book will have been illustrated. the authors themselves often do not know which copy is in question. where possible

24

Cataloguing Discrepancies

we have identified the copy. in some cases, we offer suggestions for resolving the difficulty. in the process of laying out the differences, there will emerge many details of the copies about which there is no disagreement. in the following sections we will compare, briefly, what facts earlier catalogues give. in the preliminary pages to this volume is a brief list of catalogues and other notices with their dates: fuller information is in appendix 3. here, those entries that are simply notices and supply no information useful at this point will be set aside. Dating from 1719 to 2005 are about a score of catalogues. Discrepancies in the material they transmit are sometimes significant and, when the source of the difference is incomprehensible with respect to the existing copies, suggests that other copies, with a few distinctly different characteristics, were once known. The imprint ¶418 Cataloguers must often inevitably lack intimate knowledge of the details of the books they describe. to distinguish between printings is essential. But even within the same print run, minor discrepancies can occur, creating uncertainty about identifying particular copies with specific dates or locations. often then, in order to identify a particular run, cataloguers reproduce three pieces of information verbatim: the title-page, the opening text, and the colophon from the end of the book. as the citations in appendix 2 show clearly, minor differences in the wording, spelling, abbreviation, and the position of line breaks in these three elements can securely identify or differentiate particular print runs, even when the wording is essentially the same. it is clear too, from those citations, that very often the texts in different printings convey almost exactly the same information. even within the same book, the colophon may repeat earlier material almost exactly: as we will see in 1493, the colophon in the Bate copy substantially duplicates the opening text on the leaf after the title-page. But the imprint, in all its potential variation, may not be sufficient to associate a particular book with a particular date. often the imprint includes only the first and last of the three passages. the colophon may be separated into a) the register that describes the structure or makeup of the book and b) the text giving such details as the place, printer, date, and publisher. all of these passages must be taken into account and reproduced precisely. this work is tedious and very repetitive, but necessary. ¶419 the title-pages, openings, and colophons of those publications for which there are available reproductions and that we have seen are

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

25

transcribed, as is customary, with details of abbreviations and line changes in appendix 2. others are copied from secondary references. to distinguish the Bodleian and Bate copies from each other offers no problems. and there is little difficulty in seeing that a specific cataloguer’s citations are unique to 1493. Below, we cite the imprint of the 1493 book. those cataloguers who go beyond a mere one-line listing of the book sometimes give the three passages, but with varying degrees of completeness. we demonstrate some of the ways in which these essential elements have been recorded. here the line ends are marked with ||, and abbrevations are in italics. some have words, mostly the proper names, printed in red in the original. often this feature is not discernible in reproductions. in lawley’s edition, such words are in italics. when we are certain that colour is involved, we have underlined these words here, and in the appendix. the three identifying passages are taken from the original copies of 1493. Catalogue headings ¶420 from our work preparing the list of prints from reproductions and from descriptions, it has become clear that a fourth descriptive element normally precedes the three parts of the imprint. this element is the heading in the catalogue. such headings in the various catalogues differ, as might be appropriate for the context of the entries. usually a general heading such as Breviary, York appears. oates, sander, pollard, and proctor show Breviarium Eboracense; Bohatta (1937) and hain have simply Eboracense; sayle has Breviarium (York); the ecclesiologist, vol.X, has Breviaries (York). Maittaire uses the first words of the colophon. these are trivial differences that need not seriously detain us, yet two factors cause concern. first, catalogue headings, unless clear from the context, and especially if they are in latin, could be mistaken for citations from the book itself. second, they are an indication that some agreed consistency might be desirable in future work. the title-page ¶421 plate 4.1 shows the title-page of the 1493 Breviary, with the words: Breviarium secundum vsum || ecclesie eboracensis

in the 1493 originals all of these words are printed in black. in other Breviaries, the important words are in red. the handwritten material just above and below the printed title is almost illegible. the following is very tentative: Exaudi xpe and below the

26

Cataloguing Discrepancies

Image Not Available

plate 4.1: title-page

printed words Ab sicut oro … dicatur || sonoronj (bonorum?). the material on the verso of the title-page ¶410, 428 (plate 4.4) is possibly in the same hand. all of the other handwritten lines have been dealt with in ¶414–15. the opening page and end material ¶422 there is a header on the opening page, which in 1493 reads Rubrica generalis adventus. the opening words of the page begin with the conventional salutation to the trinity. this is followed by a distinctive phrase: ¶ in nomine sancte et indi||vidue trinitatis. amen. inci||pit ordo Breviarii secundum mo||rem & consuetudinem ecclesie || eboracensis anglicane.

in the Bodleian copy, after the liturgical text, the final page, f. 478v, has the large letters .s. .w., separated by a woodcut, presumably of st william, as lawley suggests, and not wilfrid, as Duff has it. plate 4.2 shows this device from the Bate copy. also in the Bate copy is a table of contents, ff.479– 480v, too extensive to reproduce here. only Duff, gw, pollard, and Coates show the final words relevant to this table, and none gives them in full:

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

27

Image Not Available

plate 4.2: the colophon and tabula (on the recto) in the Bate copy

tabule super breuiarium || eboracensis. comoditatem repe|riendi celeriuscule prestantes: … finit tabula

such tabulae, however, are not technically part of the imprint. neither, in this case, is the woodcut, since it is not a printer’s mark. neither copy contains the register, which is often part of the imprint, namely the colophon. the colophon ¶423 as plate 4.2 shows, the Bate copy has a textual colophon not present in the Bodleian copy. this discrepancy, in the original volumes themselves, presents us with a problem. the last leaves of the Bodleian copy are said to be missing, and the signature structure confirms that this assertion is correct. it has been assumed by all who mention the issue that these leaves contained the textual colophon that appears in the Bate copy. But the printer must have changed the last pages after pulling a copy from the press. he took out the device of the Bodleian copy, inserted the textual colophon, and replaced the device on f.478v. it is this material that might have been lost from the Bodleian book. as usual, the german catalogue of incunabula, gw, is the most precise with regard to this feature, as with the rest of the descriptions.

28

Cataloguing Discrepancies

Image Not Available

plate 4.3: the colophon in the Bate copy

¶424 in the transcription below certain phrases are between brackets or in bold. Many catalogues leave out these passages, usually with an ellipsis (…) and presumably on the basis that they convey nothing specific about this book. for the phrase from ad laudem to celestis, this is certainly the case. the next phrase includes the word for York, but is otherwise also not specific, and the name Eboracensis appears in several other places. the first phrase duplicates the essential words of the opening text shown above, and to repeat it may be thought unnecessary. other words apparently contribute nothing to the identification. the specification of the day, the kalends of May, is surely important, yet estC and eeBo do not include it. ¶425 the colophon text, then, is: Breviarium secundum morem & consuetudinem sancte ecclesie || Eboracensis anglicane [ad laudem & gloriam sanctissime trinitatis: intemerate quoque genitricis dei virginis marie: totiusque hyerarchie celestis: Ipsiusque sacrosancte ecclesie Eboracensis || cleri deuotissime reverentiam et honorem:] Singulari cura ac || diligentia impensisque frederici egmundt bene revisum emen||datumque: feliciter est explicitum. impressum venetijs pro io||hannem hamman de landoia dictum hertzog limpidissimis: ut cernitis: caracteribus:|| anno salutis post millesimum quaterque || centesimum nonagesimotertio. Kalendas Madii.

The size, format, and binding ¶426 Because the most noticeable discrepancies are in the sizes, we begin with that feature. Discrepancies in the size of the fragments are of course often the result of later cropping rather than a true difference in size of the original. furthermore, measuring parchment books is notoriously

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

29

Image Not Available

figure 4.1 the Bodleian fragments, signature 32

variable: even after trimming, parchment leaves can vary in size considerably, and there is no agreement as to which leaf should be measured. nevertheless, even for these leaves, we can occasionally infer something about the originals, and there are curious results. the fragments Coates’s figures for the Bodleian leaves, in millimetres, are 145 × 203 for 321,8 (i.e. leaves 1 and 8 of signature 32), 145 × 202 for signatures 324,5 and 322,7, 143 × 201 for 323,6, 124 × 202 for k1,8, 124 × 192 for k2,7. here, in contrast to every other description of the size, the smaller value precedes the larger. this unusual method can be explained by the fact that these are not single leaves but parts of bifolia. Because the leaves from signature 32 come from the four bifolia of the signature, there are in fact four fragments, each of which has a complete leaf (1, 4, 6, 7) and part of the other leaf (respectively 8, 5, 3, 2). see figure 4.1. the leaves from signature k, however, are from only two of the bifolia of the signature (1 & 8 and 2 & 7): from Coates’s information it would not be possible to ascertain which are the complete leaves. in any case, these leaves are ‘badly mutilated.’ the leaves from signature 32, too, are cropped. to summarize these data about the Bodleian fragments: the first figure is the height, cropped, ranging from a mutilated 124 for signature k to a cropped 145 for signature 32. the British library catalogue describes the fragments in that library as 121 (127) × 81 mm (does 127 give the height of the largest fragment?). the two leaves in the ushaw College library, Durham, are 120 × 80 mm. the Cambridge fragments. these leaves were not available for examination at the time of writing.

30

Cataloguing Discrepancies

the books ¶427 Most catalogues indicate the format as 8vo (see the Catalogues). this figure is simply a rough guide as to the size, indicating that the initial leaf is folded 3 times to produce a signature of 8 leaves or 16 pages. lawley and the Bodleian catalogues specify the sizes respectively as: ‘small octavo’ or 6 × 4 inches40 (= 152 × 101 mm), and 145 × 99. Coates gives 165 × 118 × 52, the size of the cover and the thickness of the book, and 153 × 95 for the size of the leaves. the height of the leaves, then, varies between 145 and 156, a difference of a centimetre: the width between 95 and 120, or two and a half centimetres. the discrepancies here perhaps depend on where in the volume one measures but provide yet another reason for confusion. But, in fact, only one of these dimensions seems in accordance with reality. the digital reproduction, for which no ruler appears, has the proportions 110:75. using the first dimension of the sizes given above and extrapolating from the measurements above, this translates into 152 × 103, or 145 × 98, or 153 × 104.3, or 156 × 106. Clearly the measurements of the Bodleian catalogue, 145 × 99, are the closest match. But Dr francesca galligan, of the Bodleian library, confirms Coates’s measurements of 153 × 95, with 153 × 100 as possible where the binding is flexible.41 so for a specifically identified volume, we have four quite different ‘facts.’ how can such a variety occur? Can one trust a new measurement, even by one alerted to the problem? should one specify which leaf has been measured? should there be an agreement as to which leaf? presumably it should be the first normally complete leaf. ¶428 one other feature of the Bodleian copy is of interest, although it does nothing to resolve the discrepancies. there is handwritten material on the verso of the Bodleian title-page (see ¶410 and ¶502 and the inventories in appendix 1). plate 4.4 is approximately life size (4.5 × 6.5 inches). let us accept the Bodleian dimensions as correct. the bottom edge has clearly been trimmed by at least a centimetre, judging by the height of remaining lines. if we allow also for a centimetre of trimming at the top, the height of the untrimmed original, then, would have been about 165 mm. Both the left and right edges of this page also appear to be truncated. Coates transcribes the first few words, up to the end of the second complete line, ora pro nobis, perhaps suggesting by mult[o], the word ending the first complete line, that a letter has been trimmed off. words on the right-hand edge are in fact complete, although close to the gutter. the words on the left are truncated, but only by a small amount. let us assume that the

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

Image Not Available

plate 4.4: handwritten additions on the verso of the title-page

31

32

Cataloguing Discrepancies

original edges of the leaf were a centimetre larger than at present. the width of the untrimmed original, then, would have been about 120mm or, if salisbury’s measurements are correct, 130mm. that words on the left edge are truncated indicates that the writing was done before the trimming. unless the writing was added after the initial printing but before the first binding and trimming, perhaps an unlikely scenario given the sequence of processes normal in a printer’s shop, the book must have been trimmed and rebound a second time. the first binding, of course, requires a trimming in order to open the pages. let us add another centimetre to the width, and to top and bottom edges. the original now measures about 185 × 130 mm. allowing for the 8 pages of a single side of the sheet before folding, and perhaps several centimetres for the printer’s furniture, we can estimate that the printer’s forme might have been some 160 × 110 centimetres. this is not an extravagant size either for the stone (the imposition table) or the press itself. ¶429 according to lawley, the Bodleian copy is ‘bound in brown calf, and wrongly lettered 1498.’42 Coates’s tentative dating of the binding confirms that the book was bound a second time. he suggests that the binding is ‘sixteenth/seventeenth-century (?) calf’ and adds ‘with a gold floral stamp on both covers’ but makes no mention of the erroneous 1498. The structure ¶430 some descriptions of the books give their structure only in terms of gatherings. this procedure is probably the safest because, if correct and properly done, one can calculate the number of folios in the original and in the book as it now exists or existed when the description was made. we will first examine the structure in terms of signatures, and then the foliation (see ¶438). as we shall see, the numbering of the folios is far more complex than that described by lawley, making it very hard to refer accurately to particular locations by this means. signatures ¶431 like most books, this Breviary is constructed out of signatures, a set of bifolia stitched together to form a gathering or fascicle. examining the structures that the various catalogues include can also help to clarify which copies were known, and where confusion arises. the 1493 Breviary has thirty-five numbered signatures and twenty-two signatures marked with lower-case letters. from the structure, the number of leaves that ought be present can be ascertained using this formula:

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

33

x–yn (for gathering or signature x to gathering y inclusive, all with n leaves) this gives (y minus x + 1) times n leaves all signatures are quaternions except §.35 and §.y, which are sexternions. signature §.y is a sexternion in both copies of the book, but the leaves that would have contained the tabula have been removed in the Bodleian copy, leaving two visible stubs. the following upper-case letters are used here to denote the major sections of the book: t temporale k kalendar

p psalter C Common of saints

s

sanctorale

the two descriptions below basically agree, and conform to the Bodleian copy:

1880 lawley 1911 Bohatta

tkpC 1–348 3512 1–348 3512

16 folios

s a–x8 y10 a–x8 y10

ending with f.478 ending with f.478

without specifying the number of leaves, both lawley and Bohatta imply that the book ends with f.478, and do not mention any missing leaves. their description of the final signature as a quinion (10), however, indicates a reference to the Bodleian copy, even though its two stubs for the final leaves are evident. we will defer addressing the 16 folios. ¶432 Duff is more precise, giving the structure of each section, using [ ] to refer to a signature that lacks folio numbers, a practice not in accordance with the conventional (and perhaps later) usage for brackets. he also indicates the number of folios in each section except the temporale:

1917 Duff

1924 elB

t 1–258

k [268] 8ff.

p 27–338 56ff.

C 348 3512 20ff.

s a–x8 y12 80ff.

464 leaves

as Duff, but not showing the number of folios in each section. Both Duff and elB.1924 specifically refer to 464 leaves and the presence of the tabula, but only Duff mentions, in his text, the lack of 463 and 464. Duff knows of both Bodleian and Bate copies: elB.1924 gives no locations.

34

Cataloguing Discrepancies

gw enters the same information, but uses the common bibliographical convention [ ] to indicate signatures that lack the signature number. this convention is not intuitive to scholars of medieval manuscripts, since brackets are commonly used in transcriptions to indicate material missing entirely, or editorial completion of such passages.

1932/68 gw

t [18] 2–258

k p [268] 27–338

C 348 3512

s a–x8 y12

ending with f.480

gw, then, describes the Bate copy, with the tabula, although the defective Bodleian book is known. But the last leaves are referred to as f.179 & 180, despite showing the sanctorale foliation on p.290 as ff.301–478 [2] (i.e., 2 leaves missing, rather than the typical application of [ ] noted above). sander provides yet another method of recording the information: 1969 sander

tkpC [1]8 28–258 [26]8 278–348 3512

a8–x8 y12

464 leaves

the signatures with numbers deliver 284 leaves. remembering that the letters j and u are omitted from the sequence, those with letters deliver 180 leaves. the result of 284 + 180 is 464: sander says A la fin, recto 464: Finit Tabula. this figure, then, is accurate as to the number of leaves. sander too appears to be discussing the Bate copy (¶440). ¶433 Coates uses the same procedure but with less fuss, allowing the reader to assume that all signatures before the superscript 8 are quaternions: 2005 Coates

tkpC [1] 2–25 [26] 27–348 3512

s a–x8 y12

with its reference to the sexternion in signature §.y, this collation, like the inventory that precedes it, is clearly that of the extrapolated ideal copy, identical to the Bate copy, which Coates fails to mention. after the ‘field name’ Physical details, eeBo and estC show: 478; [2] leaves (i.e., 2 leaves missing). since, as Duff and sander have clearly shown, the book has 464 or 462 [2] leaves, this formulation is misleading. as the inventories of appendix 1 will show, the two signatures §.v and §.x, which appear in the correct order in the Bodleian copy, have been reversed in Bate so that the latter follows §.t. plate 7.4 illustrates the last verso of §.t and the recto showing the ‘x’ marker. within each signature, the order of leaves has been preserved.

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

35

signature 35 ¶434 in the following discussion and elsewhere, the diagrams of sheet impositions show folio numbers, which increase every other page, not page numbers: the arrangement of numbers therefore does not correspond to most diagrams in books on early printing and the folding of sheets, where page numbers are assumed. gaskell’s discussion of sheet sizes, folding, and imposition is especially useful, with numerous photographs and diagrams.43 the book was printed, as usual, by placing individual pages into a forme so that all pages could be printed simultaneously on one side of the sheet. once the other side was printed, the sheet would be folded, three times to produce a quaternion, and then trimmed so that the pages were separated. the method of placing the pages appropriately in the forme is well known: some of the discussion below will exemplify the procedure. ¶435 signature §.35 is notable in three ways. first, it is a sexternion after 34 quaternions, identical in both Bodleian and Bate copies. the sequence of texts throughout the signature is correct. second, two of the leaves are misnumbered. the sequence is: 273–281 277 282 278 284 (see ¶437). Because of these two erroneous folio numbers, we can deduce that this signature was originally also a quaternion, into which the printer inserted two additional bifolia: see figure 4.2. Confirming this insertion, too, is the third feature: the appearance of the cue 35v, indicating the fifth bifolium of signature 35. this cue appears on the first added bifolium, which, being added, thus requires a special mark. why did the printer need to insert these leaves? to judge by the present extent of the texts up to the end of the Common of saints, after printing a quaternion the printer found that he needed eight extra pages, or two bifolia, to complete the Common of saints. he could have printed and inserted these leaves as a signature of its own. we can only speculate as to why this was not the solution. Could it have been because the printer intended to end the original book here, a procedure which would make a separate sanctorale with foliation beginning at 1 a reasonable continuation in a second volume? Did he decide that this pair of leaves as a signature was not adequate in such a position? in any case he seems to have resigned himself to inserting the additional leaves within signature 35. ¶436 to include the extra material in the new signature would require two processes: 1) moving the existing text from the end of the quaternion to two new bifolia, four leaves ff.277–280, a process we will examine below;

36

Cataloguing Discrepancies

Image Not Available

figure 4.2: signature 35 and the inserted leaves

and 2) setting the new text on the last four leaves of the original quaternion. these four leaves should have been numbered ff.281–284, but where ff.281 and 283 were required, the original ff.277–279 were retained. figure 4.2 shows the makeup of the original quaternion, and the new sexternion with the two new bifolia inserted. in the sexternion, taking into account the new bifolium to be inserted, the printer has changed the numbers on the second leaf of the first and third bifolium of the original, marked with black squares, to 284 and 282 respectively (on the side of the sheet with even numbers), but not the numbers on the second and fourth (the side with odd numbers). see figure 4.3. in figure 4.2 the now erroneous numbers are shown in boxes: 277 and 279. the printer would wish to avoid resetting the whole signature as a sexternion: he chose to print a bifolium and insert it into the quaternion. three sets of 8 pages, or 24 pages, are required for the new sexternion. he has 16 pages already set in type, and presumably has kept the frames for each of these pages: these were originally ff.273–276 and ff.277–280 (second row of the lower half in figure 4.3). those for ff.273–276v, the first 8 pages, are both correct and correctly placed within the forme of the whole quaternion sheet: they can be reused and can remain in place in the forme. these pages are shaded in figure 4.3.

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

37

Image Not Available

figure 4.3: reusing the leaves of signature 35

as shown in figure 4.2 earlier, the text on the original folios 277–280 was transferred to the new leaves, which would have the same numbers. the word ‘transferred’ perhaps implies that this was done bodily, as 8 preset pages. But since the erroneous numbers 277 and 279 have remained in their original position, the numbers themselves cannot have been part of the material that was moved: the headers on these pages, however, are correct for the new contents. the implication is that the numbers were separate from the body of the pages and their headers. the latter were left in place while the text and headers were set in type, or themselves moved bodily from some other preset formes. ¶437 in order to transfer the original folios 277–280, the printer would have needed to rearrange the pages, as in figure 4.4. they would need to be placed correctly in a new forme appropriate for a doubly folded sheet (to create two bifolia or four pages), with new page numbers. the additional material, the remainder of the Common of saints originally taking up the two bifolia after the quaternion, would need to be set afresh on, or transferred to, the last leaves of the quaternion. although it

38

Cataloguing Discrepancies

Image Not Available

figure 4.4: rearranging the original leaves of signature 35

does not affect the preceding discussion of this process, it is worth noting that the header on the recto of the last leaf, [Commune] unius virginis, is also inaccurate, since the text on that page ends the Common of several virgins and begins the Common of a Matron. given the complexity of all these shifts, it is hardly surprising that mistakes should have occurred. having reprinted the original quaternion and printed the new pair of bifolia with the cue 35v, referring to the fifth leaf of signature 35, the printer could send the two gatherings to the binder. the cue 35v would allow the binder to assemble them into a single signature. The folio numbers ¶438 examining the folio numbers that the various catalogues include can help to clarify which copies were known and to whom, and to show where confusion arises. to demonstrate the problems associated with them, we will need to set them out in some detail.

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

39

Section and beginning folio number (the authors in parentheses repeat material from the author that precedes the parentheses). first, we show the overall numbering of sections. the following figures, which give the first folio of the section, are common to both copies, and need no explanation or correction.

1719 1826 1857 1880

Maittaire (panzer) hain (grässe) lowndes (Brunet) lawley

t 1 1 1 1

k none none none none

p 209 209 209 209

C 265 265

s 301 301 301 301

Duff gives this:

1917 Duff

t 1–200

k [201–208]

p 209–264

C 265–284

s 285–464

he supplies the folio numbers for the kalendar and gives details of the last leaves: 462v has the s & w woodcut and the colophon 463v–64 has the Tabula with finit 464v is blank in neither of the complete copies does the sanctorale begin with f.285, so, unless he knew of a copy not known to anyone else, we must assume that he failed to see the f.301 (or any other folio number in the sanctorale) and ran the numbers on consecutively. with the correct folio numbers, 285 to 464 + 16 etc., the last leaves would be: 478v s & w woodcut 479v–80 Tabula and finit 480v blank this conforms to the Bate copy. ¶439 stC.1926 says of the book that it ‘lacks 463, 464’ and therefore seems to have been using Duff’s numbering, with the defective Bodleian copy, which actually lacks 479, 480. the second edition (1968) simply repeats the information of the first.

40

Cataloguing Discrepancies

gw has this, using [1] to indicate that the folio number is missing, and, inconsistently, [2] to indicate that two leaves are missing:

1932/68 gw

t [1]

k p C … with defects to f.284

16 folios

s 1–178 [2]

in view of the two missing leaves, this should refer to the Bodleian copy. But in neither of the copies does the sanctorale begin with f.1. ¶440 gaskell, in his section on signatures and catchwords, says that ‘overwhelmingly the commonest signatures were the 23 letters of the latin alphabet … a convention deriving from the manuscript tradition.’44 in our book, this is true only of the sanctorale. Could it be possible that the printer, using this convention for identifying the signatures, prepared the sanctorale first and, naturally, assigned the folio numbers beginning with 1? it might explain the otherwise incomprehensible assertion by the editor(s) of gw. But it would also require them to have seen another copy not known to anyone else. we will revisit the question later. But gw also says that sixteen leaves are missing, from 285 to 300 (= 16), as though it were known that the sanctorale did begin on 301. as before, we will defer comment on this feature. observing that the last two leaves are missing, gw must have been using the Bodleian copy but, unlike lawley, knew that they were missing. in fact, gw also knows of the Bate copy, since those last two missing leaves are also described: 179a 179b 180 180b

(= 479r) (= 479v) (= 480r) (= 480v)

s & w woodcut Tabula finit blank

sander gives:

1969 sander 462v 464 464v

tkpC 284ff.: [1] 2–284 (?) avec erreurs s & w woodcut Finit tabula blank

s 180ff.: 301–464

some information here is, once again, incomprehensible. the (?) is unexplained: 464 minus 301 does not come to 180, and no known

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

41

copy ends with f.462 or f.464. since the Tabula is recorded, sander must be describing the Bate copy, or reproducing earlier information (it looks like gw’s description conflated with Duff’s sanctorale, said to begin with 285, resulting in 464). there is no record of locations or other copies. ¶441 estC says the Bodleian copy lacks the last two leaves, without numbering them. eeBo, perhaps following the incomplete foliation given by gw, erroneously incorporates the kalendar, psalter, and Common of saints into the temporale, and states that the temporale runs from 1 to 284. apparently also copying gw, eeBo states that the book ends with the .s. .w. colophon, lacking ff.179 & 180 of the sanctorale (which is in fact 479 & 480, and not 301 + 179, which results in 480 & 481). Despite its numbering of the sanctorale this must therefore describe the gw oxford copy. as we have seen, Coates mentions only the Bodleian copy but concocts an inventory of an ideal copy, for the completion of which, since the Tabula is missing in Bodley, he must have used previous catalogues. sensibly, he avoids folio numbers altogether, using instead the following method: 244v. referring to the verso of the fourth leaf of signature 24, this is clear and accurate. nevertheless, it would be useful also to include the folio numbers, defective or unclear though they be in some places, since it is only too easy to miscount leaves especially on a microfilm or a computer screen. in addition, it is only too easy to misread the sub- and superscript figures, especially if the font has to be reduced in publication. to avoid this difficulty, we modify Coates’s method in our inventories (¶906 and 907). folio numbers: original and reproductions ¶442 here, we will deal not only with the obvious errors in numbering, but also with errors caused by reproductions that are unclear. there is no doubt that the typeface itself is sometimes unclear because of dirt or ink remaining on the character before it was re-inked for printing. this renders 8 and 3, 3 and 5, and similar figures particularly susceptible to misreading on film or screen. the shape of these numbers is similar. But in addition, it is very easy to confuse the numbers 1 and 2. plates 7.5 and 7.6 in chapter 7 show some of these difficulties. it may be useful to outline some of the possible confusions: between 1 & 2 at 151, 209, 382; 0 & 2 at 130, 230, 232, 430; 2 & 3 at 238, 431; 4 & 3 at 240; 0 & 3 at 250; 6 & 5 at 156; 4 & 7 at 137; 6 & 8 at 468.

42

Cataloguing Discrepancies

Definite errors in foliation are at 31, 33ff., 87, 103, 162ff.–170, 193ff., 281, 283. plate 7.11 shows two such errors. here are the correspondences, as they appear in both copies: visible folio number 1–30 13 32 32 again 39 41–86 78 88–102 30 104–129 132 131–136 correct folio number 1–30 31 32 33– 40 41–86 87 88–102 103 104–129 130– 136 134 138–151 151 again 153–155 166 157–161 62 163 64 165 66 167 68 169 70 137 138–151 152 153–155 156 157–161 162– 169 170 171–185 184 187–192 191–198 none 109 210–229 232 231 230 233 224? 235 226 171–185 186 187–192 193–200 201–208 209– 229 230– 237 228 239 230 241–249 253 251–280 277 282 279 284 skipped 237– 241–249 250– 280 281– 284 skipped 301–371 373 373 again – 381 381 again 383–429 432 421 432–467 488 469–end 301–371 372 373– 381 382 383–429 430 431 432–467 468 469–end

The missing folio numbers and the beginning of the Sanctorale ¶443 since signature 35 ends now with folio 284v, we can say confidently that the two extra bifolia described in the section discussing that signature must have been in place before the addition of the particular sanctorale which Duff observes beginning with 285. practically, the sanctorale could have been allowed to run on from the Common of saints to complete the short signature in which that section would have ended. But it was common, or at least became common, to begin each major section of a liturgical book at the beginning of a signature and, frequently, to restart the foliation at 1. as we have seen, according to gw, the book described there has precisely that situation. But does it, or did it? in gw, we find the statement that folios 285–300 are ‘lacking in the copy examined, apparently as a result of a failure in the numbering.’45 But since the Common of saints is complete and the sanctorale begins, allegedly, with f.1, how can there be a failure of numbering? there would be a ‘failure’ only if the sanctorale began with f.301. ¶444 the two copies we know do begin the sanctorale at 301. Beginning major sections with folio 1 allowed them to be extracted from previous print runs for use in revisions in which the preceding foliation and signature structure might have been very different. it would allow extra leaves

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

43

to be inserted between sections, in this case between the Common of saints and sanctorale. as we will see, this is a common place for the insertion of additional material. the descriptions in gw and Duff cannot be the result of mistakes: to misread every number in the sanctorale strains belief. we have to postulate two other copies, from two different printing runs. the copy that Duff described in 1917 was perhaps made before the printer realized that it was more flexible to begin the sanctorale with a new signature and to restart the numbering. this print run, then, in which the sanctorale follows immediately from the preceding folio, must surely precede the known printing of 1493, or was perhaps a preliminary run, since it represents a complete book numbered sequentially throughout. there is thus no allowance for additions before the sanctorale, or for that section to be transferred to any other printing. ¶445 Beginning the sanctorale with f.301, as in the two known copies, or with f.1, as in the book described in gw, allows for additions. the latter situation allows for any number of leaves to be inserted or added after 284. when the sanctorale begins with f.301, 16 leaves can be inserted: that is, 301 minus 285 or 285 to 300 inclusive. sixteen leaves, of course, could represent two normal signatures. But is this situation a coincidence? Could the printer guarantee that his preceding sections would end precisely on f.284v? he obviously could not adjust the length of the actual text. But given some experience at setting the psalter, say, he could, over a long section, change the font or the leading between the words and between the lines to achieve a particular result. whether the 16 leaves in this case are the result of calculation is not an issue that need deter us. Between the temporale and the kalendar, the 1493 Breviary has a set of Commemorations, for the virgin, william, peter and paul, and all saints. in other, later books, such additional offices are often after the Common of saints, exactly where 1493 has the lacuna in folio numbers. these would usually be the complete offices for Chad or etheldred in sarum use, ethelbert in hereford use, and often an office for the virgin.46 always included, in those books known to the authors, is the complete feast of thomas Becket, even though the material may also be present in its usual place after Christmas and again in the sanctorale for the translation. the Commemorations specific to sarum and hereford are not likely to have been relevant for York. But let us recall the York Officia nova for Becket and edmund, and the other libellus for the Visitation office (¶309).

44

Cataloguing Discrepancies

¶446 the Becket office was hardly new in the 15th century, and the threefold appearance in many printed Breviaries is a testament to its popularity. in chapter 5 we will examine the addition of new feasts to the liturgy, and the possibility that the gap in 1493 might have been for such a purpose. realizing the possible need for additional leaves, the printer replaced the folio numbers throughout the sanctorale, apparently twice. once again we can speculate that, because of a particular situation around 1493, he thought 16 leaves would be adequate and reprinted the sanctorale beginning in some copies with f.284, numbering it afresh with f.301. the print run of 1493 has survived in our two complete copies. perhaps later, a still more flexible solution was provided, and the sanctorale renumbered yet again, to begin with f.1. a sanctorale beginning with f.1 would eliminate the necessity for renumbering. even if such a section was not intended for reuse, it may have been convenient for a printer to begin with f.1 if he could not estimate how long the preceding sections were going to be. if hamman did renumber the sanctorale with a view to reusing it, there is no evidence for that action. future printings of the York Breviary were by violette, in rouen circa 1507, and by regnault, in paris in 1526 and 1533. these two Breviaries were also filmed by uMi. as one would expect, their sanctorales do not reuse hamman’s and therefore do not provide an answer to the conundrum of the several apparently different sanctorales in the catalogues. the (re)numbering of the sanctorale ¶447 regardless of what the leaves actually show on the reproductions, the numbers of the section beginning with f.301, at least, have fewer errors than in the other sections of the book. since copies in which the sanctorale begins with another number are no longer known, we cannot pursue the issue. this feature, in itself, suggests perhaps that this section of the 1493 Breviary stands aside from the other ones in some way. the sanctorale has 180 leaves, as we know from the information in gw and from simple subtraction. was it not a massive task to renumber them all, and to do it twice? gaskell refers to the issue of standing type: printers of the hand-press period could not afford to keep much type standing for long … nevertheless type in relatively small quantities was sometimes kept standing, even for years. special settings, such as title-pages, which used little type … were most often kept for re-use. short books of up to three or four sheets were occasionally kept for reprinting.47

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

45

Yet, if we can trust stC, we know from various printings of the next sixty years that whole sections were reused, as in the case of the York Breviary of 1555? (rouen), which is said to have incorporated the whole temporale of the 1526 printing in the same city.48 indeed, sometimes it seems that whole books were reused, with a new title-page and colophon, as seems to be the case for the sarum Breviaries of 1535 and 1555.49 since they were not reset, the frames with the text already set in their formes must have been stored for later printing. the folio numbers alone could be changed with relative ease. ¶448 in fact, even sections that do not correspond to complete signatures or even to complete pages may have been somehow kept for reuse: most but not all lines in the Becket office in the sarum Breviary of 1555, for instance, are identically set in 1556–7 even though in neither book does the office begin at the top or end at the bottom of the page or column, and the amount of the office on each page differs.50 the office begins after the editorial black marker. plate 4.5 shows the beginning of the office in each print. the image on the left is from the 1555 print: that on the right from the 1556 print. the rubrics in the latter are much more evident in the reproduction. in the former, the Becket office begins at the end of the fourteenth and in the latter on the eighteenth line from the bottom in the right-hand column, with Tunc eat || processio. although every line changes after the same word, there are a few minute differences within lines: in the later print, hyphens appear at the ends of some lines; the word iustus in 1555 is abbreviated but spelt out in the later book. exactly the same difference with respect to the word Deus occurs in the gutenberg Bible, as illustrated by Mari agata along with numerous similarly minute examples.51 these kinds of circumstance are true throughout the whole office. is it purely by chance that the setting of the lines is identical? or is it simply a function of the size of the type and dimensions of the stick? gaskell has a photograph of a compositor’s stick from a later period.52 plate 4.6 shows a drawing from Diderot’s Encyclopedia of 1751. these books emanate from different printers, although both worked in paris: 1555 from regnault and Boursette, and 1556 from le Blanc for Merlin.53 lepreux, in his publication of 1912 on french typography, translated and quoted by sessions, suggests that printers may have cooperated with other houses. in the example offered by lepreux, it is violette of rouen and pierre regnault: ‘his [violette’s] productions being mostly for pierre regnault … as well as for the church of York.’54

46

Cataloguing Discrepancies

Image Not Available

plate 4.5: the Becket office in the sarum Breviaries of 1555 and 1556

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

Image Not Available

47

48

Cataloguing Discrepancies

Image Not Available

plate 4.6: a compositor’s stick, from Diderot’s Encyclopedia of 1751

Both of these printers produced York Breviaries. even so, it seems very unlikely that sticks in which individual lines were set were retained. ¶449 as we have seen in ¶447 in at least one case, a printer kept his formes for at least twenty years. the practice of storing a large quantity of type for a later revision that was merely a possibility, if documented in other cases, would allow us interesting insights into the economies of early printing. Because type in stored formes could not be used, the printer would have needed hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of individual characters and adequate warehousing. for the 1493 Breviary, two formes for each quaternion, or some 120 formes, would be required to store the whole book. this kind of process normally seems like an uneconomical proposition for early printers. The headings ¶450 the headings on each page identify the liturgical occasion. often they run from verso to recto, as shown in the inventory. in one section, they proceed thus: verso // recto (an opening) Dominica // Tertia adventus last opening of signature 2 Dominica // Nativitas dni last page of signature 2 // first page of signature 3 Dominica // Quarta adventus Dnca quarta // In vigilia nativitatis dni In vigilia // nativitatis dni In vigilia // In festo nativitatis xpi In festo // Nativitatis xpi In festo // Quarta adventus In festo // Nativitatis xpi last opening of signature 3 In festo last page of signature 3

the inconsistency of spelling, reference, and capitalization is obvious. the order is wrong. to sort this out, we have to place the pages

plate 4.7: incorrect headings in signature 3

Image Not Available

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers 49

50

Cataloguing Discrepancies

on the sheet onto which the material was imposed before the sheet was folded. ¶451 the typesetter has exchanged running heads on pages 1 and 9 of signature 3. gaskell says that ‘headlines … were added after the pages had been laid out on the [imposing] stone.’55 the errors in sequence of the headings above pages whose text is correctly in sequence confirms that the former were set separately from the latter. as shown in figure 4.5, some of these pages are of course upside down to come out right side up after folding. keeping the pages of such complex material accurate must have taxed even the most competent of compositors. placing the headers in the right position is simply an additional difficulty. galleys the initial makeup of text into galleys, long frames of continuous text, is a well-known procedure, at least of later printing technique. proof corrections, which might otherwise disturb the setting of the page, can be more easily done by using this procedure. when were galleys first used? gaskell has a section on this topic but is concerned only with the period after 1500.56 it has been hard to find a definite answer to this question. headings and page numbers are the top lines above the text. the errors in foliation and headings described above, relating to pages in which the sequence of the text is correct, surely imply that they were separate from the text itself, suggesting in turn that galleys might have been used for 1493. headings and foliation were added to the pages after galleys had been split into pages for insertion into the forme. The typeface ¶452 Duff says ‘there is absolutely nothing about the typographical appearance of [a book printed in 1579] to prevent it having been issued anywhere.’57 But he says nothing about earlier typography. By means of the type, even the inexpert eye can identify the work of major 15thcentury printers. even so, there is no systematic exploration of this topic, least of all with respect to liturgical books. gaskell deals with type, but concentrates on size and general rather than specific description, and begins his exploration at 1500. of this period, in which many more printers were operating, he says identification of the face is ‘a task that is often difficult and sometimes impossible.’58 in fact, trying to pursue this topic even at an elementary level has proved extremely difficult.

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

51

the side with odd folio numbers: the page numbers here indicate only the sequence of pages on this side of the sheet Dominica

Quarta

Quarta

adventus

dni

X

X

In festo

Nativitatis

p.8

p.9

p.16

p.1

p.5

p.12

p.13

p.4

In vigilia nativitaits dni

In festo

In festo nativitatis xpi

In vigilia

figure 4.5: imposing the headings of signature 3

¶453 first, we lay out the various descriptions of 1493. the typeface described in the British library catalogue (1924) differs from that identified in gw and proctor: 1898 proctor: elB.1924: 1932/68 gw: 1942/1969 sander:

typeface 5, or more specifically and with a size: 5a, with round h; 20 ll. = 69 mm 70 (67) g. red printed lombards 5*:66g. init. g. rubr ß 5:66g; impr. en rouge et noir; 2 col.; 36 ll.

presumably sander and gw are using the same terminology, but we have been unable to find the meaning of the asterisk in gw. in our initial pursuit of this subject we would report the following.59 it seems that there was no standard for description in the late 19th century. proctor’s ‘discussion’ in 1898 of types is limited to about two pages (pp.13–15) in his preface: he refers to the difficulties in dealing with types, but he does not lay out any system or definite advice. on p.15 he

52

Cataloguing Discrepancies

states that he intends to explain the ten parts that make up an entry, but skips part nine, the one on types. the work is organized by printer, and directly under each printer’s name is a short section explaining what type 1, 2, 3, etc., corresponds to, but for each printer the same designation means something different. that is to say, the number system is relative only to that printer’s works. what is referred to as type 5 for hamman means ‘small text type,’ but type 5 for hieronymus de sanctis (the printer in the entry preceding that for our book) means ‘very small roman.’60 his description of type 5 (pp.341–2) does not correspond to that on p.13. there are further frustrating aspects: in the line ‘type 1; large, like press 45, type 20 …’61 the significance of the word ‘press’ is nowhere explained, nor the reference to ‘type’ with a lowercase t. there exist facsimiles of specimen pages from incunabula and of alphabets representing the different fonts of type used by 15th-century printers illustrating haebler’s Typenrepertorium (1904–25, 5 v.) as well as the gw. examination of the first volume, of thirty-three, of haebler’s Veröffentlichungen (corporate author: Gesellschaft für Typenkunde des XV. Jahrhunderts-Wiegendruckgesellschaft), where we expected to find an introduction and discussion of types, proved to be some hundred pages of large leaves with samples of typography, with no introduction or table of contents. requesting the other thirty-two volumes without having more to inspire confidence seemed unnecessary for our project. Initials ¶454 no initials have been entered in either the Bodleian or the Bate copy. in the following discussion, roman, boldface, and underlining connect the number of lines left blank with the feast itself. space for initials spanning four, five, or six lines is left for the following feasts: • 4 lines at the vigil of nativity, easter, ascension, pentecost, trinity, Corpus Christi (openings 20, 110, 129, 136, 142, 145) • 6 lines at the Commemoration of the Blessed Virgin (opening 184) and in the Sanctorale at andrew (opening 301) • 4 lines for the Conception, purification, annunciation, and assumption, and nativity of the Blessed virgin (openings 308, 315, 342, 408, 425 with cue o), and at all saints (opening 456) • 6 lines in the Psalter (opening 209) • 5 lines for psalms 21 Deus deus meus respice, 26 Dominus illuminatio • 4 for 38 Dixi custodiam, 52 Dixit insipiens

Describing the Breviary and its Cataloguers

53

• 5 for 68 Salvum me, 80 Exultate Deo • 4 for 97 Cantate Deo, 109 Dixit Dominus (openings 215, 217, 222, 227, 231, 237, 242, 249) • 6 lines at the Common of Saints (opening 265) • 4 at the Common of a martyr, confessor, confessor not a pontiff, virgin martyr, and many virgins (openings 269, 274, 278, 280, 282). the initials intended for the psalter divide the book into the usual eight liturgical divisions, plus ps.21, which is not emphasized in any of the standard arrangements.62 there seems to be no significance to the appearance of five-line initials for pss.21, 26, 68, and 80. in the first seven of the eight spaces are the handwritten numerals 2–8 (plates 7.9 and 7.10). the eighth space is empty. in the margin by the first space, at ps.21, is a handwritten 21.

¶455 let us summarize a few of the places where there is potential for confusion: 1) lawley’s assertion that the book has the date 1498 instead of 1493 (see ¶410 and ¶429); 2) catalogue numbers which inevitably differ: 1493 has eleven different numbers (see ¶1017); 3) the coincidence that the format of gough’s reference marks should be also that of the library at York Minster (see ¶414). other discrepancies are as follows: the sanctorale begins, for instance, on f.301, f.1, or f.285, according to various cataloguers. this discrepancy is the most difficult to explain. the book has 464 leaves, appears to have 478 leaves, or originally 480. this discrepancy stems from a failure to distinguish between the number of leaves and the folio number on the last leaf. in a number of cases, it seems that the cataloguers know of the complete Bate copy, without referring to it, and apply that knowledge to the incomplete Bodleian copy. without adequate documentation, this kind of procedure can lead only to confusion. here, it may be of interest to note that Duff in 1917 is the first to refer to the complete copy at ashby de la Zouch. Biographical exploration has not revealed any reason why Duff should have known of this volume, but his expertise in British printing history was of course unexcelled. the size, although difficult to determine securely because of trimming in subsequent bindings, seems to differ substantially: the fragments, of course, are of little help for this aspect. further potential for confusion is provided by the mishaps in photography and digitizing: the number of frames or images is not necessarily

54

Cataloguing Discrepancies

that of the book in question. and despite statements that the the digital images of eeBo were scanned from the uMi films, discrepancies between the two occur (¶905, signatures 9–12). poor exposure and resolution also contribute to difficulty, most obvious in the appearance of the folio numbers. in addition, those who describe reproductions seem to have a substantial disregard for normal terminology of reference to pages, folios, or openings. we demonstrate some of these features in chapter 7 and the inventories of appendix 1.

5 the liturgical Context

¶501 a York book can be identified by means of the special lessons for the office of thomas Becket (see ¶509), as well as by more conventional means such as the structure of the office for the Dead and the sundays in advent.1 But a more usual method of identifying a particular use is to examine the kalendar and the sanctorale. the two should agree, of course. But when new feasts were added it was clearly much easier to rewrite or reprint the kalendar, which with its various tables fits conveniently into a signature, than to revise the sanctorale. the texts of new feasts were often added on signatures inserted between sections such as the kalendar and psalter, or Common of saints and the sanctorale. eight feasts are typical of, although not exclusive to, York kalendars. although often designated as archbishops, paulinus, wilfrid, and John of Beverley are technically bishops: 7 January 24 april 7 May 8 June 10 october 12 october 19 october 25 october

the translation of william, archbishop of York the translation of wilfrid, bishop of York John of Beverley, bishop of York william of York, archbishop of York, with an octave paulinus, bishop of York wilfrid, bishop of York relics the translation of John of Beverley, bishop of York

the feast of the Dedication is on the first sunday after the feast of the Commemoration of st paul (30 June), according to the York Breviary in trinity College, Dublin, manuscript 85 (rDt 85). see also the wollaton antiphonal (enottu wollaton: ¶609–10).

56

Cataloguing Discrepancies

New Feasts ¶502 why might a need for additional leaves in liturgical books have been foreseen? it is not hard to find a general answer, and a specific one for 1493. a good many new feasts were added to the kalendar in the second half of the 15th century. there was therefore a frequent need for liturgical books to be revised or supplemented. and surely this had to be done at minimal cost. new feasts were often written, in the case of manuscripts, or printed on separate libelli, for which a bifolium or two bifolia would usually suffice, and inserted into existing books, either when they were rebound or as loose leaves. Before dealing with the most important feasts that were added in the late 15th and early 16th century, let us consider some rather more tenuous features. the informal additions on the verso of the title-page of the Bodleian copy, in a 16th-century hand, include prayers for nicholas and st John of Beverley. prayers for both saints are under the single heading ad matutinas and again under the single heading ad vesperas (plate 4.4). Because the proper prayer for a saint is not said at Matins, the former must refer to lauds, for which matutinas was the older name.2 Because one does not say proper prayers for two unrelated saints within the same service of the Divine office, these must be suffrages after lauds and vespers for another saint. the feast for nicholas is of course in the York Breviary proper, on 6 December, and so are the two feasts for John of Beverley, for his main feastday on 7 May, and, with more solemnity, for his translation on 25 october. But since the suffrages or commemorations for these two saints are together, and therefore presumably said on the same day, we must search for proximate feastdates for nicholas and John. the translation of nicholas is on 9 May. the feastday of John is 7 May. the translation of nicholas is not in the 1493 kalendar, and in only two manuscripts of the other hundreds of Breviaries whose contents we know of, although the feast is sufficiently rare for it to have been easily missed in hughes’s inventories.3 those manuscripts are British library harley.2785 and Bodleian library laud.misc.299, for which otherwise there is no known connection with York. interestingly, in the latter book this feast is added after the sanctorale along with the feasts for the Deposition and translation of John of Beverley.4 the significance of this conjunction of rather specific feasts is unknown. in another manuscript known to hughes, too, the proper prayers, but not the offices, for these two saints are in close proximity. this manuscript is the 15th-century Burnet psalter, now in the library of aberdeen university.5 Despite the

the liturgical Context

57

presence of william of York and John of Beverley in its kalendar and litany, once again there seems to be no particular connection with York. Can we infer that the translation of nicholas was celebrated in the York diocese and that its addition to the 1493 kalendar may have been required at some time (see ¶608)? ¶503 the most important of the new feasts were the transfiguration, promulgated in 1457 for the universal church and in 1487 at Canterbury, and the name of Jesus, established in 1488.6 in 1480, the feasts of osmund, etheldreda, fredeswida, and the visitation of the Blessed virgin were ordered by the Convocation of Canterbury.7 the first three of these feasts were unlikely to have been important for York, but the visitation certainly was eventually adopted there. see our discussion of the wollaton antiphonal in ¶609–10. in fact, the dates just given are those when the feasts were adopted by the southern province. in York, the dates of adoption are more significant, at least for the transfiguration. this feast was adopted in York only in 1489, the name of Jesus a year later than at Canterbury, also 1489. the visitation was adopted only in 1513.8 all of these new offices are included as appendices in lawley’s edition. others, including the monastic feasts for thomas Becket and edmund, both archbishops of Canterbury, called Nova festa or Officia nova (see ¶309– 10), were printed in York around 1513.9 the manuscript noted Breviary of York, used at skelton, that dates from the first half of the 15th century has none of these feasts (¶612). in 1493, it is possible that the York clerics who ordered the printing may have informed hamman about the two new feasts, the transfiguration and name of Jesus, that had recently been adopted in the diocese. in addition, despite its official adoption in 1513, pfaff says that ‘there was considerable awareness of the feast [of the visitation in manuscript missals] before 1480.’10 Might it have taken two or three years for this information about the new requirements for York to filter through to venice? Might hamman have already set the sanctorale without them? ¶504 there are now three feasts – the transfiguration and name of Jesus, and the visitation – for which a insertion might have been intended. to these we may possibly add the translation of st nicholas, but in view of this tenuous nature of the evidence in this case, we will set it aside. as noted above, lawley edits these three offices in the appendices to volume 2. those appendices are in columns 735–80, or 45 columns. in addition he prints a set of Rubricae generales and the Rubrica de dedicatione ecclesie, material that he says ‘is not in the Bodleian copy, but that is to

58

Cataloguing Discrepancies

be found in one (or more) of the other copies.’11 these rubrics occupy 5 columns. would the three other feasts and this other material have accounted for 16 leaves? lawley says that the visitation feast takes 8 folios in one copy of the 1526 print.12 in the appendix to his edition of 1493 they occupy 50 columns. Counting from the beginning of advent sunday, 50 columns in the edition take up 26 pages of the book, or 13 leaves. if the new offices were accompanied by their Masses, a not uncommon procedure in such cases, the additional 3 leaves could well be filled. here, we may perhaps be allowed to indulge in some speculation. several of these major new offices were printed in england in about the 1490s, including possibly the name of Jesus by the london printer, pynson, in 1493, the same year as the York Breviary we are considering here.13 was the printer in venice instructed to leave a gap knowing that signatures with the new material would be available in england? Many liturgical books have sections inserted from earlier books with a different type and format: it is therefore not inconceivable that this english material might have been inserted. But surely it would have been available also in venice. ¶505 in the Bodleian manuscript laud.misc.84 the votive office feast for st william has been inserted between the psalter and Common of saints, along with a Marian feast and the office for ss peter and paul. similarly, in the skelton book, the main office for william, now incomplete, has been added between the psalter and Common of saints, even though it is also in its proper place in the sanctorale. the feast of the translation of st william of York, established long before but absent from the skelton noted Breviary just mentioned, has already been incorporated into hamman’s 1493 Breviary. in this case however it is, unusually, run on within the temporale, in the period just after epiphany, where the feast would have been celebrated, on 2 february. in addition to liturgical ones (¶411), there may have been technical reasons for its insertion at this point, rather than within the sanctorale. first, the sanctorale may already have been set, and resetting the whole section from 2 february would have been necessary. second, the period after epiphany is particularly complicated, involving as it does a different number of sundays to compensate for the varying date of easter.14 like the feasts immediately after Christmas, including thomas Becket, then, it may have been expedient to ‘disrupt’ the sequence of the temporale in order to set the new texts closer to the epiphany texts they interrupted. one set of fragments includes this addition.

the liturgical Context

59

unfortunately, the several sets of fragments, described in ¶405, contribute nothing to the wider issue of the ‘missing’ leaves. From manuscript to print ¶506 the first printing of a liturgical book normally takes its text from a manuscript source. the following paragraphs will allow us to identify with some confidence a possible source of the 1493 York Breviary in a particular manuscript, or at least in a manuscript tradition. the texts and chants of the standard liturgy are for the most part stable and unvarying. By standard here we mean those parts of the liturgy that are found in every liturgical use: the principal Christological feasts of the temporale, the texts of the psalter and Common of saints, and those saints’ feasts common to all locations. local saints, often brought into the liturgy late in the Middle ages, are usually provided with proper texts and chants, and these are often versified, in contrast to the prose of the standard services. those characteristic of York have been laid out in ¶501. proper offices composed for local or new saints do not have the canonical status of the conventional services: their texts and chants, and the order of them in the services, may vary. indeed, the source of the lessons and the sungtexts may be any one of several Vitae, or passions, or accounts of miracles, if the saint is important enough to have acquired more than one such legend. a detailed examination of the offices of william, paulinus, and John of Beverley has yet to be undertaken, but we expect that project might reveal the same distinctive features as those of the office we will discuss. The Becket office ¶507 there are about a dozen offices for thomas Becket, canonized in 1173, and scores of writings from which the sungtexts and lessons are drawn. Deriving from a monastic original by Benedict of peterborough, the secular sarum office is now the most abundant. nevertheless, secular Becket offices that differ from this common arrangement, especially because they include some monastic sungtexts omitted from sarum, are widespread across european manuscripts. York is one such use. in addition, it employs a distinctive set of lessons. the following section is the result of work on the much larger task of comparing the Becket office in several hundred British and european sources. although the finer details have yet to be established, the conclusions, presented after the following lists, are quite clear.

60

Cataloguing Discrepancies

the sungtexts ¶508 in the following table, the column on the left shows the order of sungtexts in the sarum use, for the most part unique to that use.15 the column on the right shows the order in the York sources if it is different. other than in a single manuscript to which we will return that order is unique to York. the musical modes of the Matins chants, normally in numerical order, are appended; where the modes are not in numerical order, one can infer that one or more responsories have been rearranged, omitted, or inserted.16 for example, in sarum use the third and fourth responsories of the monastic original have been omitted. Changes in the order of the lessons may or may not correspond. sarum

York

Vespers Magnificat antiphon pastor cesus in Matins invitatory adsunt thome martyris Matins: nine responsories in order, with the numbers of the modes in the order in which they appear in the two Uses studens livor thome 1 studens livor thome 1 thomas manum mittit 2 thomas manum mittit 2 Jacet granum oppressum 5 lapis iste sex 3 ex summa rerum 6 post sex annos 1 Mundi florem a 7 ex summa rerum 6 Christe Jesu per 8 Jacet granum oppressum 5 thome cedunt et 1 Mundi florem a 7 novis fulget thomas 6 Christe Jesu per 8 Jesu bone per 2 ferro pressos thomas 3

the arrangement of responsories in Matins has long been recognized as a principal determinant of particular uses and a means of grouping sources together.17 York uses three items that are part of the original monastic office: Lapis, Post sex, and Ferro. texts set to modes 3 and 4 are omitted from sarum; the text set to mode 4 is missing from York, and the items set to modes 5 and 6 are reversed. this musical information is not relevant to the 1493 Breviary, which lacks the chants, but may help to identify the immediate source of the printing.

the liturgical Context

61

Matins: nine antiphons, in order, with the number of the modes summo sacerdocio thomas 1 as sarum, except for the ninth antiphon Monachus sub clerico 2 Cultor agri Domini 3 nec in agnos 4 exulat vir optimus 5 exulantis predia preda 6 satane satellites irrumpentes 7 strictis thomas ensibus 8 felix locus felix 1 hosti pandit hostium 1

only one Matins antiphon is different. this, too, was probably part of the original monastic service, but is not restricted to York. the sungtexts for the translation office in 1493 are drawn from the Common of saints, and thus not useful here. the lessons ¶509 Canonical texts and chants performed in the same church and dating from the same time must have been identical. whether the corresponding Breviaries were also identical has yet to be explored. in fact, lessons in Breviaries are very rarely the same from book to book, even though they may be drawn from the same Vita or Passio, and even though the books may be from the same use.18 the choice of excerpts, whether drawn from scripture or a later hagiographical source, often differs from book to book: some passages are omitted yet contained in others. Different sources for lessons were used, and editors of liturgical books felt free to adapt and supplement the texts. the length of lessons in some Breviaries suggests that they were cues or incipits, leaving the reader to find the text from an independent source such as a lectionary. occasionally, those independent sources are divided into sections convenient for or even explicitly marked for use in the services. More often, however, they are not separated into paragraphs or sections, and even their sentences may vary in length. in such cases, there is no convenient way of referring to various passages. in the case of the lessons in York Breviaries, the source text for the main office of Becket is the anonymous Passio 1.19 Details of the layout of the edition of the Passio and the York arrangement of it are not relevant here, and the use of words such as ‘sentence’ will be clarified by textual quotations. this text is quite different from the lessons in the sarum use. the connection is thus dissolved between the antiphons, and more

62

Cataloguing Discrepancies

especially the responsories, and the texts of the lessons.20 the source of lessons for the translation feast is the same as that for the sarum lessons for the translation, which according to sherry reames ‘must be a close relative of that long-lost text, which later Canterbury tradition reported to have been either written or personally approved by archbishop stephen langton himself.’21 Passio 1 begins with the words Digne fratres. But in York books several sentences are omitted, and the words Hodie fratres carissimi merito are prefixed to the words beato Thome a fidelibus. thereafter the distribution, omission, and choice of passages vary quite considerably. in five books, however, apart from abbreviations, incidental errors, and variants, the distribution is identical. one of these books, fortunately, is our Breviary. ¶510 two others, not surprisingly, are the York Breviaries printed in 1507 and 1533. we have not seen the prints of 1517 and 1524, and in the 1526 book the Becket office has been cut out, but presumably the lessons in these books would have been the same. Much more interesting is the fourth book, a manuscript with the identical distribution. this is the Breviary now in Dublin, trinity College 85. we will examine the relationships between this manuscript and 1493 in the next section on the Compositor’s task. here it is only necessary to inform the reader that all the texts, sungtexts, rubrics, and lessons are identical except for 1) trivial changes that the compositor could have made without concern – e.g., & for et and a colon for a dot – and 2) the presence of three words in a lesson for the translation that are omitted from manuscript 85 and thus render it unlikely to be the immediate source. the fifth book, in which the source of texts for the main office is Passio 1, is the ms 440 in the Biblioteca angelica in rome. this is a book whose place of use seems, from the kalendar and sanctorale, to be st Maurice in switzerland. unless this particular set of lesson texts turns out to be more widespread than is apparent at the moment, we can only speculate that a cleric from York took the Becket office to st Maurice, or a cleric from switzerland found it in York. the Becket offices in other swiss churches do not use this text. the identification of a unique subset of Passio 1 for use as the York lessons and a unique order of responsories and antiphons for the Becket office should make it easy to identify other York books, were they to be discovered. here, however, we must remember that, as pfaff points out, sarum use ‘was followed … in some parts of the diocese of York.’22 Duff also cites a book in which the words ad usum Sarum were omitted because they were ‘perhaps considered prejudicial to its sale in York.’23 in

the liturgical Context

63

appendix 2, we discuss in some detail a sarum manuscript, the wollaton antiphonal, that was used in the York diocese. in principle, this kind of research could be extended to the texts of any late or non-standard services of the liturgy. using the Becket office for such research across Britain and europe was the initial task from which this study sprang. The compositor’s task ¶511 in his section on the transmission of the text, gaskell indicates that compositors were entitled to and often needed to change various insubstantial and sometimes more significant matters in the text: ‘in the hand-press period … the printed text was not a literal reproduction of the manuscript but a normalized version with much alteration of detail.’24 one might ask again if this kind of statement can apply to liturgical books. those freedoms may have applied to the ‘vagaries of orthography’ and to ‘accidentals’ such as punctuation and abbreviations. the different habits of proofreading known to be practised in the early period – i.e., reading aloud and visual examination – probably contributed to variation. But certain things in liturgical books – the canonical texts themselves, for instance – cannot be changed with impunity. But if the compositor intended or was required to be extremely accurate, as was certainly possible, then manuscript 85 is not the immediate exemplar for 1493. and if, like the scribe of a manuscript before him and, indeed, like lawley in the 1870s with respect to 1493, he was entitled to make non-substantial changes on his own initiative, then ms 85 comes quite close. lawley replaces i with j in words such as eius and Iesus. the 1493 Breviary with respect to ms 85 may have ampersands in place of et, colons where there are dots or nothing in the manuscript, and occasionally prints solennia for solempnia, and so on. as in manuscripts, orthographic variants are frequent, spelling not having yet been standardized. abbreviations are sometimes different, a difference that the compositor, again like the scribe, may have felt free to change in order to justify the line. Most such differences as these are relatively few between Dublin ms 85 and the print of 1493. ¶512 there are, however, one or two apparently more substantial differences, such as words omitted: the doxology for Matins responsory 3 is reduced in 1493 to Gloria from Gloria p’ (i.e., p[atri]). More significantly, the words of the repetenda cue for Matins responsories 7 and 8 are respectively Thomas cesus dum datur compared with Thomas alone, and

64

Cataloguing Discrepancies

Ne  captivos ferant compared with Ne cap. Both of the cues in 1493 are rather longer than is usual in manuscripts, and one might suspect here a need to fill the line. any compositor knowledgeable about the text before him would know that the single word Gloria is perfectly adequate to indicate the doxology and could have looked in the body of the responsory, sometimes conveniently called the ‘respond,’ for additional words to fill out the other cues. in Matins lesson 3 of the translation of Becket the words de utero matris sue in the print and edition are omitted from ms 85, somewhat damaging the sense: Beatus igitur Thomas die martis quasi ad martem [de utero matris sue] in lucem processit. this change is perhaps the most telling difference, suggesting that ms 85 cannot have been the immediate source for the 1493 print. two textual errors in ms 85 are repeated in the print: alterum for alium in Matins antiphon 1, and Pacat for Placat in Matins verse 9. the correct word quadratus in Matins responsory 3 replaces quadrus in the manuscript, but lawley also makes this correction from the 1493 print. in Matins lesson 7, too, lawley uses etcetera where the print has reliqua. in lauds antiphon 3 the print corrects an error in the manuscript, using fragrat where the manuscript has fragat. ¶513 More recently, compositors were, as common knowledge has it, required to follow their exemplars meticulously. But, again in keeping with their scribal predecessors, early compositors may have been entitled to exercise some editorial initiative. the most we can say about the manuscript is that it is closer than any other manuscript source we know and – given some expert corrective knowledge, of fragrat and quadratus for instance, or some knowledge of latin on the part of the compositors – this manuscript may still have been the immediate source: the retention of the word alterum, which is a just viable synonym for alium is inconclusive. keeping Pacat for Placat, in the context – Placat bella – suggests a lack of corrective knowledge. all of these rather minor differences must be set in the context of the compositor’s task. it was more complex than that of a scribe because he had to lift the slugs from the correct compartment and set them the correct way up in the frame and also to recognize the difference between ps . and qs in a text that, to the compositor’s eye, was in addition, the compositor, following the manuscript tradition of liturgical books, had to see that space was left at the left margin for initials,

the liturgical Context

65

and often at the right margin for abbreviations identifying genres or for turnovers from an incomplete line above, to say nothing of the problem of red type for rubrics.25 some interesting information about two-colour printing, including an original document on the topic, dated 1683, is in sessions.26 issues of spacing and reproducing the traditional design of a manuscript, then, probably played a large role and forced the compositor to exercise initiative. a few of these difficulties may have been familiar, for example, in setting poetry. it is uncommon, even in the manuscript tradition, to find a source known certainly, from unique circumstances, to have been the exemplar for a later manuscript. we are not aware of any study of a liturgical print known to have been copied certainly from a particular manuscript. a book with a promising title deals only with vernacular material and cites no direct relationships between a manuscript and a specific print.27 were an example to be found, an investigation of the compositor’s habits would be fascinating. the few occasions where lawley does not in fact reproduce the original print exactly, as he promises, makes it more difficult to be dogmatic about the relationship between the 1493 print and manuscript 85. as with the scribe of a manuscript, then, the compositor must have been free to adapt, to use conventional abbreviations and variants such as those mentioned above. such methods allowed the scribe to ‘justify’ the right-hand margin28 or, if the page was already complete, to insert a slightly longer passage over an erasure. the compositor could change the leading between characters and lines, but perhaps these adjustments were not adequate for the insertion of several words. for him, it was more important to be able to change the length of a line or even of several lines without disrupting the layout of the page as a whole. such flexibility was essential for stop-press revisions. Stop-press revisions ¶514 in the 1860s edouard frère estimated that substantial works, which would include Breviaries, would take a year to typeset and print.29 gaskell cites some figures for a compositor’s output, but in characters per week.30 how many letters are there in a Breviary? he also suggests that in the hand-press period, books were proofed as they were printed,31 which might have been done sheet by sheet. whatever the case, there was plenty of opportunity and time for changes to be made in the course of the preparation for printing. such changes may possibly account for some of the strange differences in publications said to be of the same date.

66

Cataloguing Discrepancies

the reported sizes of the 1493 Breviary differ considerably in such a way that one is tempted to think that different books are being described. the descriptions of the measurements, however, are often far from precise, and it seems unlikely that they would be the result of changing the format in a print run. the three different numberings of the sanctorale are a different matter. gw reports that the sanctorale begins with f.1, in which case the report of missing leaves does not make sense, and we must leave this puzzle unresolved. working from germany in the 1930s, did the editors have access to the book itself? Duff’s report that the sanctorale begins with f.285, confirmed by his statement that the book ended with f.464, is equally difficult to explain. it suggests that there may have been copies of the 1493 Breviary that have not survived, at least beyond Duff’s description of 1917. if there were indeed two or three differently numbered sanctorales, we probably do not need to propose two or three different prints, least of all in different years. But we must contemplate the possibility of separate print runs in 1493. ¶515 similar differences in later printings and surely in the publications of Breviaries from other uses have been observed. such differences, occasionally minute, make each copy unique. referring to copies from a single date and press run as ‘an edition’ is misleading. hence our avoidance, when referring to early prints, of the term in favour of Breviary, printing, book, or volume. Most of the differences are no doubt trivial, such as corrections of typographical errors and misplaced letters, and these can be ignored. others may be more significant, liturgically, or technically for those interested in the procedures of printing. sometimes a secure identification of a book may require an accounting of these differences. a page-by-page examination is necessary. indeed, as the example of the Becket office illustrated in ¶448 shows, sometimes even a line-by-line examination is necessary. Discrepancies in folio numbers may help to shorten the process. Mari agata, in a paper on the gutenberg Bible, has revisited the issue of stop-press changes: ‘variants within the same setting, which result from corrections made while sheets were going through the press, have not been comprehensively studied.’32 with striking examples, agata describes and lists small variants, in spelling, spacing, abbreviations, and order of words, the discovery of which mostly requires a word-by-word collation of the different copies. other, larger differences, of structure, foliation, and replacement of complete pages, such as those that occur between the two copies of the 1493 York Breviary described above, are easier to observe but are similarly in need of a thorough investigation.

the liturgical Context

67

agata describes fascinating technological methods of photographic collation. these require digital facsimiles of each copy to be manipulated and overlaid on a screen. the collation by this means of all copies of the gutenberg Bible is under way and will provide immensely useful information as to the early printing processes. whether a similar collation of copies of early printed liturgical books, a similar latin and conservative repertory, would reveal anything additional about the mechanics of printing, or about the liturgical changes occurring at the time, may be doubted. what liturgists need is a word by word collation of different books of the same use and from use to use. involving different dates, presses, printers, and fonts, the digital processes would need to be even more sophisticated. once available, they could perhaps be used for manuscripts as well as printed books. technological solutions such as those that agata describes, however, are not without their pitfalls. in chapter 7 we will show the defects of the more widespread and available technologies of microfilm, fiche, and digital imaging.

6 the Manuscripts and prints

¶601 in the previous section we singled out several manuscripts and early prints for some of their especially important characteristics. here we present a more general overview of these other sources. ManusCripts ¶602 More than thirty manuscripts are listed in the first part of appendix 2, with some accounting of the most pertinent secondary literature. the present location of a few – for instance those still in private ownership or known only in auctioneers’ catalogues – is not known. a comprehensive list with brief documentation is in a database of liturgical manuscripts of english uses, compiled and generously made available for our use by nigel J. Morgan, an expert in the field. in neil ker’s magisterial studies, Medieval manuscripts in British Libraries and Medieval Libraries of Great Britain, that author describes those sources in British libraries, with liturgical details and extensive but not complete contents. in LMLO (Sources and Chants) hughes usually provides complete inventories of feasts. More than twenty are Breviaries, most of them complete, and five are noted, an interestingly large proportion of chant manuscripts to survive. together with the antiphonal, then, we are well supplied with the York chants, at least before the early prints appear. there are no printed antiphonals. one noted Breviary is available in a facsimile edition. two of the manuscripts are written in quite rough hands, and were probably destined for private use. ¶603 several issues, mostly concerned with dating, use, and place of use, are important. the main ones are a) the principal feasts of York and the place of use, b) continued use of manuscripts and the new feasts,

the Manuscripts and prints

69

c) the dating, d) the intended use, and finally e) the state and contents of the Becket office. some of these clearly overlap: damage to the Becket office indicates that the book was almost certainly still in use after the injunctions of the 1530s and 1540s and thus bears on the dating of the books. we will be able to deal with some of these matters together. to coordinate them all into a single large table would be useful and clear, but only when every source has been examined adequately for each of the issues. in addition, it seems probable that few sources would agree with each other on a sufficient number of the issues identified in the preceding paragraph to reveal secure relationships. only item d) above has in principle been dealt with, though hardly definitively, in Cao. taking into account the other items, each source would be unique. to summarize such a situation in detail rather than in gross outline, or even fully to describe the circumstances as we know them now, would require an incomprehensibly complex narrative. in the following paragraphs we summarize with some interesting examples. The principal feasts of York and the place of use ¶604 occasionally, the assignation to York is made clear in a rubric. the ms rDt 85 in Dublin, trinity College, speaks of the dedication of the Minster: a similar rubric is added to the wollaton antiphonal. in other cases the assignation to the York use is usually obvious from the kalendar, sanctorale, and other evidence. in ¶501 we laid out feasts characteristic of York books. John of Beverley is in some ten of the sources and wilfrid in half that number. the presence of the latter, especially when the translation feast is included, may be an indication of use at ripon, where the use of York was followed. the presence of the former cannot be a guarantee of York use. neither can the absence of either be taken as a deciding factor against that use. paulinus appears quite rarely: he is in the kalendar of the Minster library, eYC ms add.115 and the sanctorale of ms add.69. in the absence of explicit assignations to York, the presence of the main feastday of william in some twenty manuscripts is our principal guide. Celebration of his translation in 1283, however, is in only three: rDt 87, eYC add.68, and add.69. its appearance surely suggests use in the Minster itself. indeed, add.68, although it also transmits the translation of wilfrid as an addition, ‘belonged apparently to associates of the cathedral chapter, perhaps by c.1400.’1 the appearance of the feast of the relics of York is a secure indication of York use, but not of

70

Cataloguing Discrepancies

use at the Minster: add.68 has the feast but was ‘written for use in harewood church, 8 miles north of leeds.’2 the manuscript lambeth palace sion.1, described below, was used in skelton. one other criterion for assignation to York has emerged from other research into the office of thomas Becket, about which we reported above. The continued use of the manuscripts and the new feasts ¶605 Because they are handwritten, we imagine liturgical manuscripts to precede printed sources. in general, that supposition is true. But there is plenty of evidence to indicate that many manuscripts were used alongside printed books, if not in the same church at least in the same diocesan use. since few of the manuscripts have the new feasts, in the kalendar or in the sanctorale or on added leaves, we must conclude either 1) that separate libelli were provided or 2) that the diocesan use was not uniform. in the first case, we would expect that the kalendars at least would have been updated. But that has been carried out in only a few of the surviving sources. inconsistency is to be expected for quite some time until printed books and reforms brought about an increase in uniformity. the wollaton manuscript, which we examine more thoroughly below, for instance, was apparently used until 1549, with an updated kalendar. obits suggest that the Minster ms eYC add.70 was used until 1544. the defacing of the Becket office and other material allows us to infer that many more books continued in use: earC; eCu 3110; eDu Cosin v.i.2; elB 28598 (probably not for York); ell sion 1; and eYC add.69. The dating ¶606 although Duff cites the case of a priest in 1495 who wished to continue handwriting books3 and some evidence that manuscripts were sometimes copied from printed books, we can reasonably safely assert that all our manuscript sources pre-date 1493. But in the absence of explicit information the dating of liturgical manuscripts is a very imprecise exercise. often the dates derive from assessment by expert paleographers, but even their judgment is sometimes risky for such books.4 even the presence or absence of the new feasts discussed in ¶502–5 is not an absolutely firm guide. one book, eYC add.69, was written after 1489 because according to ker it includes the feasts of the holy name of Jesus and the transfiguration. one, a psalter rather than a Breviary, for ripon cathedral and now in leeds university, has an explicit date of 1418. Most books are unspecifically assigned to the 14th or 15th century, occasionally to a more precise period within the century, often on the basis of obits.

the Manuscripts and prints

71

More precise dating is unlikely to emerge, although with a very detailed collation of texts and chants it might be possible to construct a tentative chronology. for our purposes the imprecision is not important. Liturgical changes ¶607 in one source, eYC ms add.69, undamaged are the feasts of paulinus, wilfrid, John of Beverley in the sanctorale and the entry of the relics in the kalendar. But the offices of saints william and Becket are cut out and Cuthbert is crossed through. similar damage is found in the Bodleian library gough.liturg.1, a manuscript in which the feasts of william, his translation, Cuthbert, and John of Beverley have been crossed through (the book lacks the temporale so that Becket is not contained). the deletion or defacing of the two most important northern saints in these two books may be an attempt to make them suitable for use in the southern dioceses. a more likely explanation is an excessive zeal on the part of those responsible for implementing reformation injunctions: the removal of all prominent or well-known archbishops and saints. Becket of course has been excised in many other books. By contrast, the office of william has been inserted in several books, even in one or two when it already exists in its proper place. in eoB laud.misc.84 and ell sion (skelton) it is added between the psalter and the Common of saints. in eYC Xvi.o.23 it is between the temporale and the kalendar. this book is a summer volume and thus contains neither main nor translation office. in eYC Xvi.o.9 it is inserted with the Mass between the psalter and sanctorale. the addition here is termed a commemoration. it is likely that a commemoration of st william may have been at least a weekly occurrence, so that access to the text in an obvious position such as adjacent to the visually distinctive kalendar would have been a convenience. ¶608 York has been mentioned in connection with three other books. the British library ms add.28598 is listed by Morgan, but we can see no connection with Yorkshire. two others have very tenuous connections. eCu ms 2602 and eoB ms laud.misc.299 both append John of Beverley in association with the translation of nicholas. in ms 2602 the two are added, each in a different hand, to the kalendar but not elsewhere. in ms laud.misc.299 lessons and prayers for John of Beverley and the translation of nicholas are appended after the sanctorale, and before the offices of the visitation, transfiguration, and the holy name of Jesus. the linkage of the two feasts is intriguing. the chapel of st nicholas is in the north transept of York Minster, exactly opposite to the chapel of

72

Cataloguing Discrepancies

st John. in 1291, the transept was not yet finished, and the date of installation of the altars is unknown. Moreover, there is in the east riding of Yorkshire an ancient parish of Beverley st nicholas. neither of these two books, however, has any other obvious links to York: both are said by authorities to be for sarum use, and each is assigned quite reliably to churches in southern dioceses: springfield, and launton near kingstonon-thames respectively. other than the linking of John and nicholas, we see no reason to question these assignations. we earlier rejected the possibility that defacing of prominent northern saints was to make the books available for use elsewhere. some printed books seem to have been modified in exactly this way. the reverse modification also occurs. the wollaton antiphonal is the most notable example. The Wollaton Antiphonal ¶609 the wollaton antiphonal was definitely adapted for use in the York diocese. there are numerous dates in the book, mostly from obits. this manuscript was written between 1410 and 1460, almost certainly for sir thomas Chaworth, a lover of heraldry, since ‘more than half of the armorials ... [show] Chaworth alliances.’5 in 1460 it was sold to the rector of st leonard’s church, wollaton, where it was kept and used until 1549, suffering the usual kind of damage in the reformation. in a script resembling that of the main hand the feast for the Dedication of wollaton on 13 May has been added. from 1549 it was kept at wollaton hall until 1924, when it was given back to the church. During that period it suffered damage from fire and damp: at the time of writing it is being restored at nottingham university.6 walter h. frere’s judgment, confirmed more recently by the work of Matthew salisbury, is that the internal evidence of the book follows the sarum rather than the York use and is ‘entirely against a Yorkshire source,’ and confirms that the kalendar is essentially sarum.7 without a thorough liturgical analysis though, it is not possible to be certain whether any of its texts or chants have been modified for York. ¶610 But wollaton is close to nottingham, and while the book was in use the parish was in the diocese of York. as frere further notes: ‘some nonsarum feasts [were] probably added [to the kalendar] when the book came to be used in nottinghamshire [i.e., wollaton].’ the office for Becket has been mostly removed, so that the lessons are not available (¶509).8 But there is ample evidence from the kalendar. the following York feasts are added to the kalendar in a small informal script where

the Manuscripts and prints

73

the date is already assigned to another feast: william of York (8 June); wilfrid (12 october). the two feasts for John of Beverley (7 May and the translation on 25 october) are added in a script that is much the same as that of the main hand, the former in a date where there is no other entry and the latter, qualified as a Memorial, after the existing entry. often the words non Sarum are appended: after the addition for william it is non Sarum sed Ebor. in addition, the feast for edmund, king and martyr (29 april) is added, in a full script, with the words non Sarum sed Synodalia. also said to be non Sarum, two feasts for st anthony, abbot, are added in small script (17 January and the translation on 2 september). an almost illegible note at the foot of June notes the feast of the Dedication of York Minster on the first sunday after the Commemoration of paul. to complicate the assignation to York or sarum, however, are the small script additions of etheldreda and frideswide, specifically said to be sarum (17 and 19 october). the holy name of Jesus and the transfiguration, common to both uses, are added similarly (7 and 8 august). none of these feasts added to the kalendar is in the sanctorale or is appended. if they were actually performed, independent libelli of the kind described in ¶309–10 must have been available. although not added to the kalendar, at the end of the book the complete versified office for John of Bridlington has been written in what looks like the main hand. although not appearing in any of the other York books, John is a Yorkshire saint, canonized in 1401, and closely associated with John of Beverley. The Becket office ¶611 in numerous cases, the leaves of the Becket office have been cut out, or defaced by erasure, or by lines, pages, or columns crossed through.9 the extent of the defacing is inconsistent, sometimes including the main office, the translation, and references in kalendar and litany; in eYC ms add.68 the translation has been erased but not the main office; in some cases, as in eYC ms add.69, kalendar entries have been restored.10 even in several British manuscripts the Becket office remains intact. that it should be so in the two manuscripts now in Dublin and their current presence there raises two questions: did the York use extend to ireland; and were the books there during the reformation? the manuscript eoB laud.misc.84 is an elegant book and may have been protected. the case of the skelton book is rather more interesting, as is the manuscript as a whole.

74

Cataloguing Discrepancies

The Skelton manuscript ¶612 this noted Breviary, used in the parish of skelton, is available in facsimile.11 the Becket office survives complete in the book for a strange reason. three different manuscripts, each incomplete, have been bound together to make a usable Breviary. one book is the psalter. the two others alternate in a complex manner not important here. one section of one book ends just after the beginning of the Becket office, where the remaining lines are struck through. immediately following this leaf the other book continues with the end of the office of holy innocents, thus repeating some of the material of the preceding leaves, but also transmitting the complete Becket texts. the office has the typical York sequence of sungtexts (¶508), but its lessons, although not those of sarum, do not follow either of the main patterns of York. this difference in lessons is odd, since in the context of the lessons of holy week the skelton Breviary agrees with the 1493 incunabulum in nearly twice as many places as any other York source. these two books, wollaton and skelton, therefore were once damaged at or close to the Becket office. that one still has the complete office throws some doubt on the supposition that it was the result of reformation vandalism. But there are other signs of reformation changes: part of the office of the Dead and the daily office of the virgin have vacat added in the margin, and the last half of Matins of the office of pope gregory is missing. like some of the other manuscripts discussed above, in addition to the full office in the sanctorale, this book also has a commemoration for st william inserted after the kalendar. one missing leaf renders the commemoration incomplete, and since this is a noted book, it does not allow adequate space for the full office with its chants to appear. the book has the full complement of York saints listed in ¶501. the kalendar is very full, including the translation of Cuthbert, and with Chad and the visitation added. it is not defaced. Because of the liturgical difficulties caused by the date of the translation of william (¶411) the kalendar has an extra rubric: festum translacionis sancti Willelmi Ebor. archiep. semper in dominica proxima post diem epiphanie celebretur tanquam duplex & principale obits indicate the book was owned by the lovell family in skelton and probably used in that church at least until 1521. another addition points to a possible use by the rector of skelton, 1526–9. the property of the lovells and the land on which the church and rectory stood were

the Manuscripts and prints

75

probably taken over by various recusants in the 16th century.12 Did they know of damaged liturgical books from which a complete Breviary could be restored? Conclusions (manuscripts) ¶613 to summarize the manuscripts adequately is of course hampered by the inconsistency that they display in almost every respect. the liturgy they transmit, the saints in their kalendars, the different types of defacing, the adaptations for various purposes, the use to which they were put, and the establishments or people by which they were used: all contribute to the unsurprising conclusion that liturgical practice, even within the same diocese, was far from uniform. as is usual with liturgical manuscripts, much descriptive and analytical work remains to be done. this is even more the case with printed sources. printeD Books ¶614 after 1493 there are five publications of the printed York Breviary, in 1507, 1517, 1526, 1533, and 1555. for every one of these there are problems. in some cases, the date of printing must be extrapolated. the single copy of 1507 lacks identifying leaves, so evidence for the date and printer comes from secondary evidence about the printer and from records about the importation of liturgical books (¶309). Both lawley and Bohatta show the date of the 1517 print as uncertain, presumably also because the identifying passages are missing. the evidence for two other printings, of 1509 and 1518, is very tenuous and not documented in any of the sources cited: some reasons for possible confusion or misdating are set out in appendix 2. finally, a book in the Bodleian library has been assigned both to 1517 and to 1526. a lack of consistency in the descriptions of the books adds to the confusion. elB C.35.a.15 is described as both an octavo book of 1526 and a sextodecimo of 1533 (hughes’s inspection confirms the lack of a date). for the Breviary of 1524, Bohatta (1937) refers to a book printed in paris in folio format. amiet and iCep simply list a 1524 publication under York. an octavo book in Cambridge, summer volume only, lacks a title-page and colophon, so its description as a 1524 book must be speculative. to address these problems it would seem reasonable to compare the texts to determine which books, if any, belong to the same printing. for 1526 and 1533 several copies of each printing survive, and some are complete although occasionally separated into two volumes, for winter

76

Cataloguing Discrepancies

and summer. the 1533 Breviary is said to be largely a reprint of 1526, perhaps another instance of standing type, but there are some substantial difficulties to be resolved before this feature can be confirmed. ¶615 the assignment by earlier scholars of the Cambridge copy to 1524 must have required the comparison of texts, but the task would have been confused by another inconsistency. its sanctorale is clearly for York, but it has a sarum kalendar. undeterred by the York character of the liturgy, eeBo, stC, and sayle list it as a sarum book. the book assigned to 1524 by amiet, iCep, and Bohatta has not been contaminated by sarum, though, and we must conclude that they refer to other copies of this book. strangely, too, like 1524 the summer volume of 1555 is also said to have a sarum kalendar, although its liturgical destination according to stC, adams, and lawley seems to have been York. have the 1524 and 1555 prints been confused? to complicate matters further, the temporale of the latter is said greatly to resemble that of 1526. has the temporale of 1526 been reused in 1555? is this yet another possible instance of standing type? the laconic ‘bound with’ in the eeBo listing for 1524 and 1555 is not sufficiently informative. unsurprisingly, several of the earlier publications listed in appendix 3 contain little more than lists of York printed books, with minimal information. all are dated, but none is completely correct, especially as to present locations. the most accessible are those in lawley’s edition. the first, published in volume 71 (1880), is complemented in volume 75 (1882). we describe these lists in appendix 3. Duff’s list (1899) is less complete and omits the print of 1517: the revision by sessions (1982) with stC numbers and a few additional locations still lacks 1517. Conclusions (printed books) ¶616 one of the chief changes made possible by the advent of printing was an increase in uniformity of religious practice. this outcome, however, was more the result of the various acts of uniformity passed during the reformation. until then, a similar state of inconsistency prevailed, even once printed liturgical books became common. possibly every copy of a single printing of the Breviary was more or less uniform, although stop-press changes may have been a factor: tediously detailed comparisons have yet to be undertaken. from a publication in one year to another in a quite different year, the differences are perhaps likely to have been even greater, especially since different printers and places were involved. these comparisons, too, have yet to be done. Certainly early printed books were adapted and changed in ways similar to those of manuscripts.

7 Modern technology

photographiC reproDuCtions ¶701 a note about facsimiles and the increasing inability of scholars to include them at reasonable cost is in ¶105. unless we state otherwise, all the images are from the reproductions of the Bodleian copy, which has been microfilmed, put onto microfiche, and digitized. the relationships among those technologies, and which medium depends on a previous one, are not entirely clear: robbins deals with the issue in appendix 3. in this section we will deal with the various facsimiles of our Breviary and incidentally its fellows in the liturgical and literary fields. after a review of the advantages and disadvantages of the various media, we will rely chiefly on illustrations, with captions or occasionally a somewhat more extended commentary. the three available forms of facsimile each have their own strengths and weaknesses, both as methods of reproducing the original and, at least in the case of 1493, as prone to error and misinterpretation. two of the methods rely on photography: microfilm and microfiche. the principal film archive is that made by uMi; the fiche used here is part of a project run under the auspices of istC. the third method is that of digital reproduction: for users with institutional access to eeBo, images can be downloaded for private research. all three of these resources are described in appendix 3. one essential quality of all reproductions in black and white, of course, is the ability to show red as a grey distinctly different from the black of the text. in 1493, red print is used only for rubrics. in later prints, as we noted in ¶309–10, 410, and 419, red printing is also used for important words on the title-page and in colophons. another feature of the originals that it is

78

Cataloguing Discrepancies

sometimes useful to have recorded in photographic reproductions is bleedthrough. we will comment on bleedthrough in some later facsimiles. But bleedthrough is often quite faint, although the camera, or at least a high-resolution digital camera, records much more than the eye can see. Manipulation of digital images can sometimes bring up faint rubrics or bleedthrough, but often at the expense of crispness, and certainly at the expense of time and effort. in the facsimiles that follow, enhancement of one feature has often resulted in a degradation of some other element. professional graphic specialists may be able to achieve superior results to those displayed here, which were made by hughes: some experience, however, indicates that even experts are unfamilar with what is necessary to enhance such images satisfactorily, where the difference between shades of grey is often crucial, and the cost of experimentation by an expert may be prohibitive. rather than adjust only part of the image, producing a reproduction with unacceptable areas of different contrasts of black, grey, and background, we usually opted to manipulate the whole frame to improve the sharpness, but not sufficiently to obscure the folio numbers. similar manipulation to improve contrast rather than sharpness could have been applied to the microfilm images, again with results that were often bad for the folio numbers. we will comment on some of those techniques. photography ¶702 photography is, in fact, the first major technological advance affecting medieval books since the advent of printing. the uMi microfilm of 1493 is, fortunately, on perforated 35mm film. full-frame or nonperforated film has the immediate disadvantage that in many film readers the edges are not visible. in addition it is harder to mark the edges of individual frames that might need to be selected. several features may be observed. Bleedthrough from the other side of the page can sometimes be seen. although mostly unwanted, sometimes this is an advantage, as when it may allow missing openings to be confirmed without reading the text in detail: usually, however, the bleedthrough is not sufficiently clear for this to be possible (see plates 7.9 and 7.10 below). Contrast between black and grey is, however, extremely useful, allowing the reader quickly to distinguish text from rubric (see part of plate 7.3): as other facsimiles show, this feature is inconsistently present, especially in the digitized reproductions. Digital enhancement of images, at considerable expense of time, can help, when essential. also, as a number of the facsimiles show, often the images are slightly skewed: correcting this is hardly possible, since reshaping the page throws off the alignment and focus of the words.

Modern technology

79

Microfilm ¶703 the uMi film of the 1493 Breviary is number 106, and the York Breviary is the seventh book on the film. the reference is thus 106:07. Microfilm is by far the best and most convenient of the visual resources, suffering only from human mishap: occasional poor exposure and compensating duplicate frames, or the missed opening, sometimes noticed and appended later. the film in question is generally easily legible. each frame is an opening of the book, and hence the images are smaller than would be the case if a page filled the frame. Yet the focus is good. this is the only resource in which bleedthrough appears (plates 7.9 and 7.10). prints can be made quite successfully, as many of the following facsimiles demonstrate. in fact, the facsimiles used here were scanned, using a specific function of the new digital technology. to obtain decent reproductions, a resolution of 300 dots per inch was adequate. the endpages or flyleaves of the 1493 book were not filmed; hence the inability to find the curious reference in lawley to the ames quotation (see ¶410). on microfilms of the later publications of 1526 and 1533, the edges of the endleaves can be seen, but the leaves themselves are not filmed. there is another trap for the unwary who use the uMi film archive. the first frame of the film of the 1518 printing of the sarum Breviary shows the colophon (plate 7.1):1 the most obvious feature of the image is the ruler with the words ‘British Museum.’ More careful observation discloses a Cambridge university library call number in the top right-hand corner. the uMi team set up their cameras in the British library to film stC holdings and had books from Cambridge university and the Bodleian sent there to be filmed when there were no British library holdings.2 But in the case of the 1493 Breviary we are examining here, there is no doubt as to the location of the copy filmed and scanned: the Bodleian stamp is on the title-page (plate 4.1). so too is the reference mark of an earlier owner. sometimes the location can be ascertained only from such a mark. Microfiche ¶704 More recent, and essentially less useful in a number of ways, is the microfiche. in our case, one set of fiches within units 50 and 51 of the incunabula collection based on the istC,3 there are no duplications or omissions, so the number of frames (other than those giving only the modern publisher’s information) is the same as the number of leaves in the book. this feature suggests that the microfiche was not made from the microfilm automatically but by manually rephotographing each frame of

80

Cataloguing Discrepancies

Image Not Available

plate 7.1: the colophon of the sarum Breviary of 1518

the film with care, or by re-photographing the original. the ‘useful’ area of each transparency is 9 × 15 cm, carrying 30 images, 1.5 × 1 cm, also of openings rather than individual pages of the book. the resolution is therefore much less precise than that of microfilm. viewing the fiche requires a device that, we suspect, is becoming less readily available. there are methods of printing individual images for an acceptable result, but these require high-end, expensive equipment not normally or economically available to most scholars. no doubt the same is true of digital scanning of fiches. to obtain the reproductions shown here required digital scanning at 19,800 dots per inch. But even scanning at this resolution did not immediately produce decent reproductions. as several facsimiles indicate, the characters are not sharp, their edges bleeding into the background. Digital images ¶705 the digital images, issued by eeBo, are the least reliable of the resources, although perhaps the most convenient and accessible for the modern user. these images, like those of the fiches, cannot have been made automatically from the film: in our case, several openings are simply omitted, and one, the opening page of the kalendar, is duplicated, defects not present on film or fiche. as the previous sentence indicates, each image, called a ‘page’ in the adobe reader in which they must be read, is an opening. as subsequent facsimiles show, they are sometimes so faded that the folio numbers are often invisible.

Modern technology

81

Duplicate or omitted frames and pages ¶706 photographing early books printed on parchment and manuscripts is complicated in a number of ways. images and leaves can sometimes be cropped, duplicated, or omitted. to ascertain duplication or omission, it is necessary to peruse each and every page, at least reading the last lines of the page and the first of the next, as in the following examples. to know whether the text is not continuous often requires a detailed knowledge of the liturgy. Duplication is always a result of the actions of the photographer: a realization, for instance, that the exposure was wrong. omission could be the result of a photographic error or a lacuna in the original. to distinguish these two possibilities we will use the term ‘omitted’ for the photographic circumstance and ‘missing’ for the lacuna in the book. those who use photographic reproduction on film or a digital resource need to know the circumstances. when the images are of openings, interpreting the circumstances is relatively easy. where images of pages are concerned, the situation is more convoluted. Because of such occurrences, the number of frames of film or ‘pages’ of the digital images will not correspond to the number of openings or folios in the book. that photographic and digitized reproductions may also disagree with each other is a new and unexpected difficulty. some cataloguers, lacking the time to do otherwise, have described the books using an erroneous count of facsimiles derived from either a defective film or a defective digitization. the mishaps in photographing and digitizing 1493 are recorded in the inventory. openings: duplicated or omitted images ¶707 when images of openings are duplicated or omitted in the photographic process, the text will be discontinuous from recto to verso, on consecutive images. this discontinuity is impossible in the book itself. nothing is missing from the original, as it was when photographed. Both the uMi photographer and the person responsible for the digitizing photographed or scanned some openings of the 1493 Breviary twice. on the digitization but not on the film, one duplication happens to be the first page of the kalendar, so it is obvious. within the dense pages of text, there are other duplications in film and digitization without immediately obvious visual characteristics. also, the photographer or scanner missed some openings. parchment leaves are sometimes quite sticky. the technician unknowingly turned over two leaves. as in the duplication of openings, if the photographer has missed an opening, the text from recto to verso will not be continuous.

82

Cataloguing Discrepancies

Image Not Available

plate 7.2: Missing photographic frames, f.73 and 76v

plate 7.2 shows the right-hand column of a recto and the left-hand column of the verso on consecutive ‘pages’ of the digital images. folio 73, the first leaf of signature 10 as the facsimile shows, is followed by the verso of 76 (the reversed bleedthrough of the folio number 76 is visible). the text at the foot of the former reads: precamur alteri towards the end of a hymn (lawley’s edition col.271). at the top of the following ‘page’ is: mo[do] fiat p[ro]stratio in laudibus (lawley’s edition col.282, several pages beyond 271). this is a rubric, and thus printed red, which would make the dislocation immediately obvious in a colour reproduction. in plate 7.3 the contrast between rubric (grey) and text (black) is reasonably clear in the column in the left-hand facsimile, but not in the right, the following frame. folio 71 ends with the words de xl. un[de] non,

Modern technology

83

Image Not Available

plate 7.3: Missing photographic frames, f.71 and 72v

and the following frame, which shows f.72v, begins with Suffragia co[n] sueta (lawley’s edition, cols 263 and 267 respectively). in both the plates, the openings between these pages have been omitted, a defect that here could be ascertained from the folio numbers, which skip from 73 to 77 and from 71 to 73. openings: missing leaves ¶708 when internal leaves (as opposed to first or last leaves as in the Bodleian copy) are missing or rearranged from the original, the text from verso to recto will be discontinuous, on the same image, the opening. if a single leaf or two is missing or out of order, a limited page-by-page examination will reveal the circumstances. to determine that a whole signature is misbound may require a more extensive perusal. two discontinuities, one at the beginning and the other at the end of the misplaced signature, will occur. no internal leaves are missing from the Bodleian copy. But in the Bate copy two signatures, §.x and §.v of the sanctorale, are reversed, no doubt

84

Cataloguing Discrepancies

Image Not Available

plate 7.4: Discontinuity in the Bate copy

in a subsequent rebinding. the resulting situation, described in appendix i, is illustrated here (see plate 7.4a and b). plate 7.4a shows the last three lines on the final verso of §.t, and the first lines of the first recto of the misplaced §.x. the discontinuous text is not obvious. plate 7.4b shows the last verso of §.x and the first recto of §.v (that is, the point at which the reversed signatures meet). here, the discontinuity is visually obvious: two lines of lesson ii followed by a new initial for lesson iij. pages: discontinuous images ¶709 if the images on film or digital image are of pages rather than openings, the situation is more complex because the discontinuity will be from image to image in every case. in the event of duplication, identical text on consecutive images will appear. in the case of omission, because the photographer may have omitted two (or any even number of) pages, it will not be possible to distinguish photographic error from a lacuna in the original. By observing the margins of the pages, if the images are good enough, it will probably be possible to determine whether consecutive images are rectos or versos. on a good image, the gutter, or binding, margin will be distinct from the free edge. the former will often be curved into a shadow: below the latter may be the edges of subsequent leaves. on rectos, the gutter is on the left. the faCsiMiles ¶710 the following facsimiles are all chosen to illustrate particular features of the various technologies, but often to show the folio numbers. in

Modern technology

85

Image Not Available

plate 7.5: Digital images of ff.209 and 210

Image Not Available plate 7.6: Detail of plate 7.5

numerous cases, a casual inspection of the folio number, especially on the digital image, can result in error. here, we will rely chiefly on illustrations, with captions or occasionally a somewhat more extended commentary. in some of the following facsimiles we have manipulated the image in adobe photoshop and commented on the procedure. usually, the whole image is enhanced in some way to improve the sharpness, but not sufficiently to obscure the folio numbers. similar manipulation to improve contrast rather than sharpness could have been applied to the microfilm images, again with results that were often bad for the folio numbers. adjusting only part of the image to enhance just the numbers often produces a result with unacceptable areas of different contrasts of black, grey, and background. the Common of saints begins with f.209. plate 7.5 shows reproductions derived from the digital images. the clarity depends to some extent on the enlargement. as noted above, the digital camera sees more detail than the eye can resolve, and enhancement can sometimes help, although it is tedious to carry out and beyond what is necessary for most purposes. plate 7.6 shows details, not enhanced other than for size, of these numbers. salisbury, who has examined the book directly, says that there is no question that the 1 in 109 is in fact a 2. ¶711 in the next facsimiles, the same page is reproduced from the microfilm, fiche, and digital image respectively (see plate 7.7a–d). the

86

Cataloguing Discrepancies

Image Not Available

plate 7.7: Detail of f.330. a: microfilm; b, c, d: microfiche, original and enhanced; e: digital image

microfilm, the first image (a) is the clearest, although the digital image (e) is perhaps the sharpest. the fiche, being so small in the first place, is the hardest to reproduce: shown here are (b) the original, where there is substantial background noise surrounding the text when printed; (c) an image that has been adjusted to reduce the noise; and (d) an image adjusted for sharpness. ¶712 in plate 7.8 the rubrics on the film (a), are just differentiated, much more so on the fiche (b), and ‘fragmented’ on the digital image (c). the fiche has been enhanced a little to improve the contrast and sharpness. the digital image is, once again, the most disappointing. ¶713 in the three images of plate 7.9 the difference in bleedthrough is clear. the microfilm (a) shows both the folio number and, in the space left for the initial, the text on the recto. none of these elements has been

Modern technology

87

Image Not Available

plate 7.8: Detail of f.334. a: microfilm; b: microfiche; c: digital image

enhanced. Both the film and fiche reproductions (b), when printed, show background noise. here, the digital image (c) is sharpest and has the best contrast. ¶714 the next four images, in plate 7.10, show the handwritten cues in the spaces left for initials and in the margins. once again, bleedthrough is most prominent on the film (a), as is background noise when printed in both film and fiche. the second and third images (b and c) are from the fiche, with the second of those enhanced to improve the constrast and sharpness, and to remove the noise. in this case, the digital image (d) is obviously the clearest. ¶715 plate 7.11 from the microfilm shows the handwritten notes in the top margin that identify the summer sundays. the folio number, erroneously 66, not a defect of the reproduction, should be 166 (see ¶442). ¶716 the image in plate 7.12 shows one page of the table of summer sundays, with the historia identified. it is a reproduction from the microfilm, but without the background noise. it is of folio 195, despite the number that appears (see ¶442).

88

Cataloguing Discrepancies

Image Not Available

plate 7.9: Detail of f.325: spaces for initials; bleedthrough. a: microfilm; b: microfiche; c: digital image

Modern technology

89

Image Not Available

plate 7.10: Detail of f.242: spaces for initials; bleedthrough; handwritten psalm number in margin. a: microfilm; b, c: microfiche, original and enhanced; d: digital image

90

Cataloguing Discrepancies

Image Not Available

plate 7.11: incorrect folio number: f.166 printed as 66

Image Not Available

plate 7.12: table of sunday assignations: f.165 (recte 195)

8 recommendations and Conclusions

reCoMMenDations ¶801 some of these recommendations will apply, mutatis mutandis, to the cataloguing of liturgical manuscripts.1 in the conclusions, we set out a few of the difficulties, such as wartime, that may beset cataloguers. without knowing the constraints that all cataloguers must face, we set out below some ideal conditions that could have made our task, as users, easier. we try to express these as preferences. But implicit in many is something more than a recommendation or suggestion. a few specific pointers for the cataloguing or research process itself may be useful. we include some matters that we think mandatory. we will not anticipate here the format for a catalogue laid out in appendix 3. it is the practical result of some of the points laid out below and might profitably be consulted after these recommendations are considered. A catalogue entry ¶802 this archetype deliberately recalls in its structure our primary contention: that individual copies of early printed books, like individual manuscripts, need to be treated as individual, unique copies, potentially variable in all of their details (note point 5, below). general, primary descriptions if any of the material here is extensive, and especially if it is inessential, it should perhaps be presented in an introductory narrative with crossreferences in the Catalogue, in order to keep the latter as uncluttered as possible. the history and inventories of the 1493 printing are cases in point.

92

Cataloguing Discrepancies

1. the heading in the catalogue should be differentiated clearly from material that might derive from the book itself, even if this means a clumsy solution such as catalogue numbers. using english terms is an easy method of achieving this end. 2. the catalogue number should be preceded by a symbol such as #, and different fonts may be used, as in ¶431–3 (see ¶805). 3. the date, place, printer, number of volumes, and format or size, may follow. a. Because the flexibility of the binding can affect the accessible width of the page, the measurement should be of the first complete leaf, or at least of a specified place in the book. b. additional notes may be required: the stationer for whom the book was printed; the separation of the volumes into summer and winter. 4. title-page, opening page, colophon, register, and final material should always be cited verbatim and completely. 5. each copy must be described separately, with all the material under 3 and 4. 6. it should be absolutely clear which copies have been seen in situ, or by using which medium, and how thoroughly they have been investigated, and where they are presently located. 7. all the basic information should be given, under categories such as a. the history of the volume, if essential to understanding the details of the book. b. the structure in signatures, foliation. if photographic resources have already been shown, defects in those may be interspersed within the descriptions of the signatures: otherwise under 8 below. c. the contents. this category may or may not include a full or abbreviated inventory of the book. it should certainly include an account of the major sections: the kalendar, temporale, psalter, Commemorations, Common of saints, sanctorale, and additions. new or special local feasts, of course, are essential elements of information. if the book is assigned to a specific use, then the evidence for the assignation should be explained. secondary literature ¶803 other criteria are as follows: 8. what editions (in the modern sense of the term) and photographic resources, including digitized facsimiles, are available.

recommendations and Conclusions

93

9. whether those resources include endleaves and other seemingly extraneous material. in two cases, important information about the 1493 Breviary was absent from the film, fiche, and digital images. that such resources should include everything is a matter for technicians rather than cataloguers, but obviously some guidelines should be established by an expert in the subject. 10. an evaluation of the value and contents (e.g., lists, mentions, full descriptions) of the secondary literature, with a. a clear indication about which information has been copied from earlier sources, and which has been researched afresh; b. a clear indication about what has been seen, and what ignored or unavailable. 11. the original date of unrevised reprints must be obvious. it is often hidden on an inner page. the research process ¶804 in the research for the book, several points should be remembered: • even the best of photographic reproductions are inadequate. whenever possible, the original must be the source of the description. • image numbers deriving from photographs are not an accurate representation of the number of folios. • a folio number on the last leaf is not an accurate account of the number of leaves, because separate sections may be independently numbered. • in reproductions, the sequence of texts from verso to recto and from recto to verso must be checked: if the former is incorrect, an opening has been omitted from the reproduction; if the latter is incorrect, at least one leaf is omitted from the book (see ¶706–9). • using folio numbers to refer to specific pages may be unwise. our desire to point readers to the office for st thomas of Canterbury in the temporale may require going back and forth beyond the actual office to ascertain that the sequence is correct. Coates’s method of referring to the leaf of the signature is more reliable, but should be complemented with the folio number for the user’s convenience (see ¶907). Desiderata ¶805 we would wish for: • an unambiguous term for a print run of a particular year. the term ‘edition’ is unsatifactory because, at least for the modern reader, it

94

•

•

•

•

Cataloguing Discrepancies

carries implications of ‘having been edited from a previous publication.’ is that how the Breviary of 1526 was produced from that of 1493? or 1493 from a manuscript? the word ‘issue,’ which carries overtones of a serial publication, can mean ‘part of an edition with special features’ and is thus similarly imprecise. we have avoided the problem – the issue – by the use of neutral words such as ‘book’ or ‘publication’ with the relevant date. the words ‘printing’ or ‘print run’ seem the most accurate and least troublesome. a consistent and better way of referring to liturgical texts in library catalogues: the conventional method of the library of Congress is not suitable for liturgical books, involving multi-level nested layers of categories in an attempt to make one method of description fit all. almost every liturgical book, even when printed, is sui generis. users work by location, or by a specific name such as The St Andrews manuscript or The Winchester Troper in the case of manuscripts, and (as is clear in a number of the catalogues used for this project) by date or place of printing, or by the printer’s name, in the case of printed liturgical books. at least these ‘nicknames’ should always be a part of the catalogue entry. a consistent terminology: page, frame, opening, image, folio cannot be used indiscriminately. neither can items of punctuation such as square brackets be used for more than one purpose, as in the cataloguing pages of some websites, for example: Title: [Breviary. York] where the brackets signify ‘editorial translation, summary, or concoction’ of a piece of information, and Breviariu[m] s[e]c[un]dum ... Published: [[venice] : [Dilige[n]ta ... where that interpretation is mixed with a cluttered ‘expansion of abbreviations in the original.’ a similar ambiguity is in the gw description set out in ¶439. numbers to be uniquely distinguished: catalogue numbers, manuscript numbers, dates, page, column, volume, line, and folio numbers. this is surely unarguable; hence, the use of ‘vol.i p.xii’ in the ‘catalogue’ sections of this text, but not in its narrative, where the uncluttered form ‘vol.i xii’ is perfectly clear and aesthetically preferable. a clear, uncluttered method of presentation: dense, undigested paragraphs, even if leavened with italics and boldface, do not encourage exploration.2 it is little help to a user to be presented with an undiscriminating and dense block of bibliographical references.

recommendations and Conclusions

95

• the establishment of a consistent set of abbreviations for description. short forms are detested by many scholars, but absolutely required for concise, quickly accessible information, especially in tables: the investment of time reading and absorbing serpentine prose is as much a disincentive as formulas. But they must be as transparent as possible.3 • a reliable method of describing typefaces. ConClusions ¶806 the preceding comments are, of course, restricted to the cataloguing of liturgical books, an extremely difficult discipline. Many of the discrepancies, difficulties, and defects of existing catalogues of earlier printed books we have not recorded for fear of seeming too negative or critical, and for fear of overloading the narrative with unnecessary detail. our confusion in preceding chapters, no doubt shared by the reader, has driven us to our first conclusion: no previous description can be trusted without serious confirmation. even our own description took a monstrous effort and was the occasion of not a few reservations. unfortunately, we suspect that this caution applies to every description of all early english printed Breviaries. Most cataloguers can be forgiven: they are constrained by finances and time; and travel to see books in distant locations must have been as difficult physically for them as it has been financially for us. Duff in 1916 and sander in 1942, in particular, wrote during wartime. ¶807 the chief characteristic, perhaps, of many existing catalogues is that all copies of a single print run are usually described in the same entry without adequate differentiation. this procedure may be a practical matter of time, economy, and finances, but it can certainly be frustrating for the user. it cannot result from the supposition that every copy of a printed book from the same run will be identical, since it is well known that printers made changes and corrections, sometimes called stop-press interventions, in the course of a run. whole pages were sometimes replaced. occasionally, multiple runs were assigned to a single date. Copies from a single date are not necessarily unique. extrapolating from the differences between the two copies of the 1493 York Breviary and the frequency of stop-press variants, we conclude that each copy of an early printed book must be treated like a manuscript: as a unique witness. this conclusion, our second, will be no surprise to experts in the field.

96

Cataloguing Discrepancies

to expect busy cataloguers, perhaps not experienced in the liturgy, to examine every copy in situ page by page is unrealistic. an editor of the second edition of stC, katharine pantzer, writes: most bibliographers are hesitant to deal with liturgies from the period before, during, and after the reformation ... [catalogues can] help indicate the large heaps into which the various texts can be sorted ... [but] considerable work still needs to be done.4

Can technology help? Mari agata’s report on the comparison of different copies of the gutenberg Bible by the superimposition of digital images is encouraging, but to hope for the application of such technology to everyday liturgical books is utopian. ¶808 even if technological solutions should be feasible and economic, there remains the problem of dealing with existing literature on the book in question. here we venture a third conclusion: earlier catalogues should, by and large, be set aside on the grounds that sorting out the inconsistencies to make sure that the particular piece of information actually refers to a particular copy involves an effort that is quite out of proportion to the value of the result. the editors of stC, second edition, omitting all previous references except Duff, seem to have adopted a similar position. even recent catalogues can be misleading. earlier ones may be of historiographical interest and occasionally may provide some information not evident in a particular copy. unless they are explored, how can one be sure that an older reference does not have a gem of knowledge that might clarify a present problem? indeed, the list in sessions, which otherwise contributes nothing that is not available in more reliable publications, has one piece of information (incorrect, as it happens) not available in any other source: the location in philadelphia of a copy of the 1526 print.5 the chaotic state of affairs with regard to the cataloguing of early printed liturgical books seems to be spinning more and more out of control, with a laissez-faire attitude perhaps encouraged by such modern technologies as the web. our fourth conclusion therefore is that a satisfactory result can be achieved only with a fresh start, when we take each copy as an individual document, like a manuscript. ¶809 our task in this volume was enormous, and is not complete for all sources. even to prepare a comprehensive and detailed survey of the more than thirty manuscripts and all the other five printings would require a large team of international scholars of the liturgy and early printing

recommendations and Conclusions

97

technology with sufficient funds to allow page-by-page examination, at least of the printed books, in situ. we have shown in several places that reliance on photographs is unwise and fraught with danger. Years will be required: to feel comfortable enough to identify lacunae in a Breviary, whether in the original or in a modern photographic reproduction, can alone take years of arcane work. some aspects of early printing, at least of liturgical books, do not seem to have received much attention: the identification and description of early typefaces; the question of galleys; the frequency and quantity of standing type; the responsibility of the compositor towards his text; and of course the transition from particular manuscript exemplars to the earliest prints. to expect such conditions is again utopian. the task will be undertaken piecemeal by individual scholars. for such scholars to proceed without generally accepted and reasonably firm guidelines for cataloguing and describing and presenting the material is a recipe for further chaos. no cataloguing project of which we are aware, for this kind of material, uses anything approaching the format that we set out in the section on printed books. ¶8106 we take printing processes for granted, especially now that it has become possible for anyone with a word processor and laser printer to produce superb results. in the 15th century the mechanical techniques were new and unfamiliar. But the expected results, in terms of aesthetics, utility, and layout, were not. to prepare for the printing of an early printed book would have required considerable effort and time. remember edouard frère’s estimate of a year to typeset something like a Breviary. to set up a print run, then, would have been similar in difficulty to that of a scribe creating a manuscript, with compositors subject to a similar potential for human error. Modern cataloguers, also grappling with another novel technology, that of computerized databases and how to print from them, must be concerned also with aesthetics, utility, and layout, and are equally susceptible. to put descriptions of unique books into procrustean beds such as cataloguing schemata designed for publications of a much different era makes working with such books difficult. to repeat information from earlier catalogues without a new page-by-page examination would be like a 15th- or 16th-century compositor using existing formes without being sure of their contents and without proofreading each letter. no computerized routine can replace physical investigation of the book itself. But a properly designed database can be flexible enough to allow good cataloguing for unique and idiosyncratic artefacts such as

98

Cataloguing Discrepancies

anonymous or conflated texts without specific titles, dates, or publishers. and with the appropriate guides, electronic searching can make the information readily accessible to a user. Singulari cura ac diligentia ... bene revisum emendatumque.

appendix 1 inventories

The comparative inventory ¶901 a reader who has access to the relevant materials will note that opening 453 in the Bodleian copy corresponds to opening 461 in the Bate copy, frame 440 of the uMi microfilm, image 435 of the eeBo digitization, and frame 18 of fiche 15 in the microfiche reproduction. Confusion of this sort contributes to the difficulties of working with early printed books and their facsimiles. Based on examination of the two complete books in situ, and of the uMi film, the microfiche copy, and the digital reproduction produced from the film, we present an inventory of the foliation, headers, and signatures as they appear in the books and their facsimiles. such a comparative inventory was necessary in the course of our enquiries and will also be useful for readers who wish to see a comprehensive account of the variants in the several sets of numbers, which sometimes coincide and sometimes differ only slightly. the example above demonstrates the fullest extent of these difficulties. format and terminology ¶902 signature markers are preceded by the character §. we refer to ‘opening’ (abbreviated o.), ‘photographic frame’ (pf.), and ‘digital image’ (di.) to refer to a spread of a book showing a verso and the next recto identified by the printed number on the recto, a single frame of the microfilm, and a single ‘page’ of the digital reproduction respectively. the middle term, ‘photographic frame,’ might apply equally well to a frame of the fiche, so we have used an alternative format: for instance (10.12) to indicate fiche 10, frame 12. the letter p is used only in conjunction with f.

100

appendix 1

some feasts begin on the verso of the leaf. to refer to them accurately by the conventional means would then require the addition of v or r to the folio number, and a feast beginning on f.26v would appear on frame 27 of a hypothetical facsimile, assuming that there are no missing leaves or errors in the photography. readers may consider the opening number to be equivalent to the more usual folio number. folio numbers (beginning with f), where they appear in the inventories, refer to numbers actually printed on the page. liturgy ¶903 a general outline of the contents is given by the inclusion of major feasts and sections of the book. in some cases these will correspond with markers already given (i.e., the start of a signature). to make legible tables possible, and to ensure a uniformity of design with hughes’s Late medieval liturgical offices (lMlo), the names of the feasts have been abbreviated. a handlist of these abbreviations is available in that publication.1 types of errors ¶904 as has been noted, the foliation is erroneous. this defect is noted in the columns corresponding to the two printed copies. other errors occurred in the production of the facsimiles. in the microfilm copy, some openings appear to have been photographed twice; they appear as duplicates on the film. some of these duplicates have been omitted (pf.69, 70) from the digitized copy; others have been left in (pf.94, 95). other openings have not been photographed at all, or have been left out of the digitization. The structural inventory ¶905 one objective of this book has been to provide an accurate account of the contents of the 1493 Breviary. the format and structure of the two copies are, for the most part, identical. this table provides a reference point for the beginnings of feasts and observances; of sections of the book; and of signatures (again indicated with the §). where it has been necessary to retain unabbreviated titles, or to indicate both the beginning of a liturgy and a signature, readers will find first the signature, then the title, then the folio and reference point.

1 hughes lMlo Texts ¶201 & 217–29

inventories

101

Major feastdays listed in the structural inventory are given in yet another notation: this one is modified from the form used by Coates.2 to give an example, 143v identifies the verso of the third leaf of signature 14. to make this useful notation more readily readable in the small type necessary for convenient printing, we have adopted a modification of this system. our notation would render the same page as 14:3v, to signify signature 14, the verso of leaf 3. where necessary for clarity, we will precede this formulation with § and a dot, thus §.14:3v. this inventory also makes clear the transposition of signatures v and x in the Bate copy, indicating that the interior leaves of the signature were not displaced and the contents have maintained their order.

2 the system is described at length in Coates vol.1 lxxix ff.

(pf.41) (pf.46, 47)

(2.12)

(2.04)

(1.26)

(1.18)

(1.10)

(1.03) (1.04) (1.05)

(di.41) (di.46)

(di.33) (di.40)

(di.25) (di.31)

(di.17) (di.21) (di.23)

(di.9) (di.12)

(di.2) (di.3) (di.5)

(o.41) (o.46)

(o.32 bis sic) (o.39)

(o.25) (o.13 recte 31)

(o.17) (o.21) (o.23)

(o.9) (o.12)

(o.2) (o.3) (lacks #)

(o.41) (o.46)

(o.32 bis sic) (o.39)

(o.25) (o.13 recte 31)

(o.17) (o.21) (o.23)

(o.9) (o.12)

(o.2) (o.3) (o.5)

3 On o.23 running heads incorrectly state In festo // Quarta adventus 4 Foliation skips from 39 to 41 without any missing pages. This omission compensates for the duplication of f.32. 5 o.46 photographed twice, digitized once

(§.6)

(pf.33)

Thms;C

(§.5)

(pf.17) (pf.21) (pf.23) (pf.25) (pf.31)

Adv.4 Nat.

(§.3)

(pf.9) (pf.12)

(pf.2) (pf.3) (pf.5)

(§.4)

Adv.2 Adv.3

(§.2)

Adv.1

Bodleian

Lacks § Lacks § (verso of title-page)

Bate

5

4

3

Notes

Title-page Handwritten material Temporale rubrica generalis

(§.1)

Digital

Liturgy

§ no.

Fiche

appendix 1

Comparative inventory ¶906 Film

102

6 7 8 9

(pf.116)

(pf.108) (pf.112)

Fiche

(4.24)

(4.16) (4.20)

(4.08)

(3.30)

(3.22)

(3.14)

(3.06)

(2.28)

(2.20)

f. 68 photographed twice, digitized once. o.72 not photographed. oo.74–6 not digitized. 91v / 92r photographed and digitized twice. o.99 not digitized.

(§.15)

Pas.

(pf.100) (pf.106)

(§.13)

de benedictionibus et gratijs per annum

(pf.91) (pf.94, 95)

(§.12)

(§.14)

(pf.83) (pf.89)

(pf.75)

(§.10)

(§.11)

(pf.66) (pf.69, 70)

(§.9)

XL.1

(pf.58)

(§.8)

Film (pf.50)

Liturgy

(§.7)

§ no.

Digital

(di.109)

(di.101) (di.105)

(di.94) (di.99)

(di.85) (di.88, 89)

(di.77) (di.83)

(di.72 sic)

(di.65) (di.68)

(di.57)

(di.49)

Bate

(o.113)

(o.105) (o.109)

(o.97) (o.30 recte 103)

(o.89)

(o.81) (o.78 recte 87)

(o.73)

(o.65) (o.68)

(o.57)

(o.49)

Bodleian

(o.113)

(o.105) (o.109)

(o.97) (o.30 recte 103)

(o.89)

(o.81) (o.78 recte 87)

(o.73)

(o.65) (o.68)

(o.57)

(o.49)

9

8

7

6

Notes

inventories 103

(pf.156)

(§.20)

Fiche

(6.04)

(5.26)

(5.18)

(5.10)

(5.02)

Digital

(di.149)

(di.141)

(di.133) (di.138)

(di.125)

(di.117)

Commem. BVM.Com William.Com

(pf.188) (pf.189) (pf.190) (pf.195)

(pf.180) (pf.183)

(§.23)

(§.24)

(pf.172) (pf.173)

(§.22)

Dedication

(pf.164) (pf.165) (pf.167) (pf.169) (pf.171)

(§.21)

(7.06)

(6.28)

(6.20)

(6.12)

(di.181) (di.182) (di.183) (di.188)

(di.173) (di.176)

(di.165) (di.166)

(di.157) (di.158) (di.160) (di.162) (di.164)

Here begin handwritten additions to the running heads and margins. (pf.159) (di.152) (pf.162) (di.155)

(pf.148)

(§.19)

(pf.140) (pf.145)

(§.18)

Tri.

(pf.132)

(§.17)

Film (pf.124)

Liturgy

(§.16)

§ no.

Bate

(o.185) (o.184 recte 186)

(o.177)

(o.169) (o.70 recte 170)

(o.161) (o.62 recte 162) (o.64 recte 164) (o.66 recte 166) (o.68 recte 168)

(o.166 recte 156) (o.259 recte 159)

(o.153)

(o.145)

(o.134 recte 137)

(o.129)

(o.121)

Bodleian

(o.185) (o.184 recte 186) (o.187) (o.192)

(o.177) (o.180)

(o.169) (o.70 recte 170)

(o.161) (o.62 recte 162) (o.64 recte 164) (o.66 recte 166) (o.68 recte 168)

(o.166 recte 156) (o.259 recte 159)

(o.153)

(o.145)

(o.134 recte 137) (o.142)

(o.129)

(o.121)

Notes

104 appendix 1

This signature lacks foliation: opening numbers are extrapolated. Kalendar (pf.204) (7.22) (di.197–198) Tabula (pf.210) (di.204) Benedictiones (pf.211) (di.205)

Psalter

(§.26)

(§.27)

(pf.236) (pf.237)

(§.30) (8.24)

(8.16)

(8.08)

(7.30)

(di.230) (di.231)

(di.222) (di.227) (di.229)

(di.214)

(di.206)

(o.233) lacks § (o.224 recte 234)

(o.225) (o.232 recte 230) (o.230 recte 232)

(o.217)

(o.209)

(o.199)

(o.165 recte 195) ends at f.198v

(o.191 bis)

Bate

N.B.: 6 is 9 upside down. o. 199 is digitized twice. ff.207, 208 are omitted entirely (no evidence of stubs). On film, 209 appears to be 207. The leaf after 230 is foliated 233; nothing is missing. Text on 230 continues on 233.

(pf.228) (pf.233) (pf.235)

(§.29)

10 11 12 13 14

(pf.220)

(§.28)

(pf.212)

(di.191) (di.193)

(pf.198) (pf.200)

(di.189) (di.190)

(7.14)

(pf.197)

(pf.196)

Digital

Peter& Paul.Com All Ss.Com De dominicis ordinacionis

Fiche

(§.25)

Film

Liturgy

§ no.

(o.233) §.30 present (o.224 recte 234)

(o.225) (o.232 recte 230) (o.230 recte 232)

(o.217)

(o.209)

(o.199) (o.205) (o.206)

(o.193) (o.165 recte 195) ends at f.198 (198v blank, 199 KL)

(o.192 bis)

(o.191 bis)

Bodleian

14

13

12

11

10

Notes

inventories 105

(10.08)

(10.04)

(9.26)

(9.18)

(9.10)

(9.02)

Fiche

(di.278) (di.280)

(di.274)

(di.270)

(di.262)

(di.254) (di.259)

(di.246)

(di.238)

Digital (di.233) (di.235) (di.237)

(o.277 recte 281) (o.279 recte 283)

(o.277)

(o.273)

(o.265)

(o.257) (o.257)

(o.249)

(o.241)

Bate (o.225 recte 236) (o.228 recte 238) (o.230 recte 240)

Sanctorale Andrew (pf.296)

(pf.288) (10.24)

(10.16)

(di.290)

(di.282)

(o.309)

(o.301)

15 In this case, rather than our formulation §.35:5v, we show the exact characters of the original: 35v.

(§.b)

(§.a)

Notes

(o.277) (35v = i.e. fifth leaf of §.35) 15 (o.277 recte 281) (o.279 recte 283)

(o.273)

(o.265)

(o.257) (o.262)

(o.249)

(o.241)

Bodleian (o.225 recte 236) (o.228 recte 238) (o.230 recte 240)

(o.309)

(o.301)

The Common ends at f.284 verso. Between this leaf and the beginning of the Sanctorale at o.301, 16 folio numbers are omitted. This looks suspiciously like two quaternion signatures. See ¶445 & 504.

(pf.284) (pf.286)

(pf.280)

(§.35v)

(pf.268) (pf.276)

Common of Saints

(§.35)

(§.34)

(pf.260) (pf.265)

(§.33)

Litany

(pf.252)

(§.32)

Film (pf.239) (pf.241) (pf.243) (pf.244)

Liturgy

(§.31)

§ no.

106 appendix 1

John.B Peter&Paul,aa (pf.359)

(pf.352)

(pf.368)

(§.l)

Thms;C.tr

(pf.360)

(§.k)

As is usual in early printed books, §.j is not used.

(§.i)

(pf.344)

(pf.328)

(pf.320)

(pf.312)

(§.h)

William,B

Film (pf.304)

(pf.336) (pf.340)

BVM.An Wilfrid,b.tr

Gregory,pope Cuthbert,b

BVM.Pu Peter.C

Vincent,m Paul.C

Liturgy

(§.g)

(§.f)

(§.e)

(§.d)

(§.c)

§ no.

Fiche

(13.06)

(12.28)

(12.20)

(12.12)

(12.04)

(11.26)

(11.18)

(11.10)

(11.02)

Digital

(di.362)

(di.354)

(di.346) (di.348) (di.352) (di.353)

(di.338)

(di.330) (di.334)

(di.322) (di.323) (di.328)

(di.314) (di.317) (di.319)

(di.306) (di.313)

(di.298) (di.299) (di.302)

Bate

(o.381)

(o.373 bis)

(o.365) (o.367) (o.371) (o.373 recte 372)

(o.357)

(o.349) (lacks #)

(o.341) (o.342) (o.347)

(o.333) lacks § (o.336) (o.338)

(o.325) (o.332)

(o.317) (o.318) (o.321)

Bodleian

(o.381)

(o.373 bis)

(o.365) (o.367) (o.371) (o.373 recte 372)

(o.357)

(o.349) (o.353 added by hand)

(o.341) (o.342) (o.347)

(o.333) §.e is present (o.336) (o.338)

(o.325) (o.332)

(o.317) (o.318) (o.321)

Notes

inventories 107

16 o. 313 digitized twice.

Wilfrid.B.dep

Michael,arch

(§.s)

(§.t)

Ex.HC

Cuthbert.tr BVM.Nat

John.B.dec

BVM.As

Stephen.i

Peter.V

Mary.M

Liturgy

(§.r)

(§.q)

(§.p)

(§.o)

(§.n)

(§.m)

§ no.

(pf.432)

(pf.424)

(pf.416) (pf.418)

(pf.408)

(pf.400)

(pf.399)

(pf.392)

(pf.384) (pf.386)

(pf.376)

Film

(15.10)

(15.02)

(14.24)

(14.16)

(14.08)

(13.30)

(13.22)

(13.14)

Fiche

(di.427) (di.429)

(di.419)

(di.411)

(di.403) (di.405) (di.407)

(di.395) (di.400)

(di.386) (di.389) (di.393, 394)

(di.378) (di.380)

(di.370) (di.377)

(di.367)

Digital

Bate

(o.445) (o.447)

(o.437)

(o.429)

(o.421) (o.423) (o.425)

(o.413) (o.418)

(o.405) (o.408) (o.412)

(o.397) (o.399 present)

(o.389) (o.396)

(o.386)

(o.445) (o.447)

(o.437)

(o.429) (o.421 recte 431)

(o.421) (o.423) (o.425)

(o.413) (o.418)

(o.405) (o.408) (o.412)

(o.397) (o.399 present)

(o.389) (o.396)

(o.386)

Bodleian

16

Notes

108 appendix 1

Liturgy

Film

(pf.440)

(pf.456)

(§.y)

not present

Tabula

(16.14)

(16.04)

(15.26)

(15.18)

Fiche

not present

(di.458) (di.461)

(di.451) (di.454) (di.456)

(di.443) (di.446)

(di.435) (di.438) (di.441)

Digital

2 leaves, (in effect ff.479, 480)

(o.469) (o.742 recte 472) (o.474) (o. 475–477) (o.476) (o.479)

(o.453) (o.456)

(o.461) (o.464) (o.467)

Bate

2 stubs

(o.469) (o.742 recte 472) (o.474) (o.475–477) (o.476) (o.479)

(o.461) (o.464)

(o.453) (o.456) (o.459)

Bodleian

18

17

Notes

17 Note that the foliation of the transposed signatures is correct as if they had been in the proper order: therefore in both cases, §.v = 453–60, §.x = 461–68. 18 In Bate copy, foliation illegible.

(pf.466)

Catharine,v SW device and colophon

Cecilia,v Clement,m

(pf.448)

(§.x in Bodleian, §.v in Bate) Martin

As is usual in early printed books, §.w is not used.

(§.v Bodleian; §.x in Bate) John;Bev.tr All.Ss.v All.Souls

As is usual in early printed books, §.u is not used.

§ no.

inventories 109

1:1r 1:1v 1:2r 1:3r 2:1r 2:4r 3:1r 3:5r 4:1r 4:7r 5:1r 6:1r 7:1r 8:1r 9:1r 10:1r 11:1r 12:1r 13:1r

f.2r f.3r

f.9r f.12r

f.17r f.21r f.25r f.31v f.33r f.41r f.49r f.57r f.65r

f.73r f.81r f.89r f.97r

Bate

f.1r f.1v

Correct f.

19 Mislabelled nativitatis dni.

(§.1) Title-page Handwritten material Temporale Rubr. Gen Adv.1 (§.2) Adv.2 Adv.3 (§.3) Adv.4 Nat. (§.4) Thms;C (§.5) (§.6) (§.7) (§.8) (§.9) (§.10) XL.1 (§.11) (§.12) (§.13)

Headers

10:1r 11:1r 12:1r 13:1r

3:1r19 3:5r 4:1r 4:7r 5:1r 6:1r 7:1r 8:1r 9:1r

2:1r 2:4r

1:2r 1:3r

1:1r 1:1v

Bodl.

Dedication (§.24) Commemorations BVM.Com. William.Com. (§.25) Peter&Paul.Com All.Ss.Com.

f.193r f.194r

f.179r f.185r f.185v f.186r f.188r

Headers Correct f. de benedictionibus et gratijs per annum f.104v (§.14) f.105r Pas. f.107v (§.15) f.113r (§.16) f.121r (§.17) f.129r (§.18) f.137r Tri. f.141v (§.19) f.145r (§.20) f.153r (§.21) f.161r (§.22) f.169r (§.23) f.177r

25:1r 25:2r

23:3r 24:1r 24:1v 24:2r 24:8r

13:8v 14:1r 14:3v 15:1r 16:1r 17:1r 18:1r 18:5v 19:1r 20:1r 21:1r 22:1r 23:1r

Bate

25:1r 25:2r

23:3r 24:1r 24:1v 24:2r 24:8r

13:8v 14:1r 14:3v 15:1r 16:1r 17:1r 18:1r 18:5v 19:1r 20:1r 21:1r 22:1r 23:1r

Bodl.

Structural Inventory ¶907 This table employs the notation described above to describe the position of a leaf: 24:2r represents the second recto of signature 24.

110 appendix 1

34:1r 35:1r 35:5r

f.265r f.273r f.277r

f.301r f.304r

(§.a) Sanctorale Andrew Chrysantus&Daria,mm a:1r a:4r

34:1r 35:1r 35:5r21

27:1r 28:1r 29:1r 30:1r 31:1r 32:1r 33:1r 33:6r

26:1r20 26:7r 26:7v

25:3r

Bodl. Andrew.oct Nicholas Andrew.Oct BVM.Con Lucy (§.b) Thms,a Felix.in.Pincis Maurice.&.Marcellus,p Anthony,monk Prisca,v Fab.&.Seb.,m Agnes,v (§.c) Vincent,m Emerentian,v Paul.C Polycarp.&.Julian Agnes.Oct Batildis,q Brigid,v BVM.Pu (§.d) Blasius,m Gilbert,c Agatha

Headers f.304v f.305r f.307v f.308r f.308v f.309r f.311r f.312r f.312v f.313r f.313v f.313v f.315v f.317r f.317v f.320r f.320v f.323r f.323v f.324r f.324r f.324v f.325r f.327v f.328r f.328v

Correct f. a:4v a:5r a:7v a:8r a:8v b:1r b:3r b:4r b:4v b:5r b:5v b:5v b:7v c:1r c:1v c:4r c:4v c:7r c:7v c:8r c:8r c:8v d:1r d:3v d:4r d:4v

Bate

20 No folio numbers are printed: numbers in parentheses are hypothetical, assuming they continue as previously printed. 21 I.e., the fifth leaf of §.35. 22 Headers have In festo // S. Lucie virginis. This must be an error.

a:1r a:4r

27:1r 28:1r 29:1r 30:1r 31:1r 32:1r 33:1r 33:6r

26:1r 26:7r 26:7v

25:3r

Bate

f.209r f.217r f.225r f.233r f.241r f.249r f.257r f.262r

(f.201r) (f.207r) (f.207v)

f.195r

Correct f.

(§.27) Psalter (§.28) (§.29) (§.30) (§.31) (§.32) (§.33) Litany (§.34) Common (§.35) (§.35v)

(§.26) Kalendar No foliation Tabula Benedictiones

De dominicis ordinacionis

Headers a:4v a:5r a:7v a:8r a:8v b:1r b:3r b:4r b:4v b:5r b:5v b:5v b:7v c:1r22 c:1v c:4r c:4v c:7r c:7v c:8r c:8r c:8v d:1r d:3v d:4r d:4v

Bodl.

inventories 111

Correct f.

f.330v f.331r f.331v f.332r f.333r f.334r f.335r f.335v f.336r f.338r f.340v f.341r f.341v f.344r f.344v f.345v f.346r f.346v f.347v f.348r f.347v f.349r f.349v f.351r f.351v f.352r f.352v f.353r f.353v f.353v

Headers

Vedast.&.Amand Scholastica Juliana,v Peter.C (§.e) Mathias,a Albinus,b Chad,b Gregory,pope Cuthbert,b Benedict,abbot (§.f) BVM.An Ambrose,v Rubrica de festis T.P. Tiberius.&.soc George,m. Wilfrid,b.tr Mark,e Vitalis,m Philip.&.John (§.g) Inv.Holy.Cross John.ad.p.Lat. John,B;Y Gordian.&.Epimachus Nerei.&.soc Dunstan,b Urban,p Augustine,B

d:6v d:7r d:7v d:8r e:1r e:2r e:3r e:3v e:4r e:6r e:8v f:1r f:1v f:4r f:4v f:5v f:6r f:6v f:7v f:8r f:8v g:1r g:1v g:3r g:3v g:4r g:4v g:5r g:5v g:5v

Bate d:6v d:7r d:7v d:8r e:1r e:2r e:3r e:3v e:4r e:6r e:8v f:1r f:1v f:4r f:4v f.5v f:6r f:6v f:7v f:8r d:8v g:1r g:1v g:3r g:3v g:4r g:4v g:5r g:5v g:5v

Bodl. German,b Petronilla,v Nicomedis,m Marcellinus.&.Peter Boniface William,B (§.h) Primus.&.Felicianus,m Barnabas Batildis.&.soc William,B.oct Basilius,b William,B.Oct Ciricus.&.Julite Botolph,abb Gervasius.&.Protasius Leofrid (§.i) Alban(us) Ethelreda,v John.B.v John.B John.&.Paul Leo,p Peter&Paul,aa (§.j not used) (§.k) Paul,a.Com John.B.Oct Swythunus,b

Headers g:6v g:7r g:7r g:7v g:8r g:8v h:1r h:3v h:4r h:4v h:5r h:6r h:6v h:7r h:7v h:8r h:8v i:1r i:1v i:2r i:2v i:5v i:6v i:6v k:1r k:2r k:4r k:4v

f.365r f.365v f.366r f.366v f.369v f.370v f.370v f.373r f.374r f.376r f.376v

Bate

f.354v f.355r f.355r f.355v f.356r f.356v f.357r f.359v f.360r f.360v f.361r f.362r f.362v f.363r f.363v f.364r f.364v

Correct f.

k:1r k:2r k:4r k:4v

i:1r i:1v i:2r i:2v i:5v i:6v i:6v

g:6v g:7r g:7r g:7v g:8r g:8v h:1r h:3v h:4r h:4v h:5r h:6r h:6v h:7r h:7v h:8r h:8v

Bodl.

112 appendix 1

n:1r n:4r n:4v n:5v

f.397r f.400r f.400v f.401v

n:1r n:4r n:4v n:5v

k:6r k:6v k:8r l:1r l:1v l:2v l:3r l:3v l:4r l:5r l:5r l:8v m:1r m:1v m:3r23 m:3v24 m:5v m:6r m:6v m:6v m:7v

Bodl. Donatus,b Peter.V.Oct Laurence.v (§.o) Tiburcius,m Hypolitus.&.soc BVM.As BVM.As.oct (§.p) Dom.infra BVM.As.oct Barth.a Hilda,v Rufus Augustine.b John.B.dec Felix.&.Adauctus,mm Aidan,b Egidius,t Cuthbert.tr Bertinus,t Evertius,b BVM.Nat BVM.Nat.oct Dom.infra BVM.Nat.oct Exaltatione.HC (§.r)

Headers n:6r n:6v n:7r o:1r o:1v o:2v o:3v o:5v p:1r p:3r p:4v p:4v p:5r p:6r p:8r p:8v p:8v q:2v q:3v q:4r q:4v q:6v q:8r q:8v r:1r

f.413r f.415r f.416v f.416v f.417r f.418r f.420r f.420v f.420v f.422v f.423v f.424r f.424v f.426v f.428r f.428v f.429r

Bate

f.402r f.402v f.403r f.405r f.405v f.406v f.407v f.410v

Correct f.

23 Header on f.391r has S.Anne m’ris marie, on f.391v it is matris. 24 Header on f.392 has S.Marthe hospite Christi; the following opening has S.Marthe virginis // et hospite Dni. 25 Headers read Dominica // In exaltatione sce’ crucis.

k:6r k:6v k:8r l:1r l:1v l:2v l:3r l:3v l:4r l:5r l:5r l:8v m:1r m:1v m:3r m:3v m:5v m:6r m:6v m:6v m:7v

f.378r f.378v f.380r f.381r f.381v f.382v f.383r f.383v f.384v f.385r f.385r f.388v f.389r f.389v f.391r f.391v f.393v f.394r f.394v f.394v f.395v

Peter.&.Paul,a.oct Martin.transl Dom.infra Peter.&.Paul,a.oct (§.l) Thms;C.tr Grimbald,p Everildis,v Septem.fratrum,mm Margaret,v Praxedis,v Mary.M Appollinaris,b (§.m) James,a Anna Martha Sampson,b Felix.&.soc Abdon.&.Sennen Germanus,b Peter.V (§.n) Stephen.i Dom.infra.oct. ap. Oswald,km Sixtus,pope

Bate

Correct f.

Headers

p:1r p:3r p:4v p:4v p:5r p:6r p:8r p:8v p:8v q:2v q:3v q:4r q:4v q:6v q:8r q:8v25 r:1r

n:6r n:6v n:7r o:1r o:1v o:2v o:3v o:5v

Bodl.

inventories 113

t:1r t:2r t:2v t:3v t:4v t:5r t:5r t:6r

f.445r f.446r f.446v f.447v f.448v f.449r f.449r f.450r

t:1r t:2r t:2v t:3v t:4v t:5r t:5r t:6r

r:3r r:4r r:4v r:4v r:6r r:7r r:7v r:8r r:8v s:1r s:3r s:4r s:4v s:5v s:6r s:6v s:7r

Bodl.

26 Printed Scoru xi miliu virginu. 27 The header first has pape: subsequently and correctly, epi.

r:3r r:4r r:4v r:4v r:6r r:7r r:7v r:8r r:8v s:1r s:3r s:4r s:4v s:5v s:6r s:6v s:7r

f.431r f.432r f.432v f.432v f.434r f.435r f.435v f.436r f.436v f.437r f.439r f.440r f.440v f.441v f.442r f.442v f.443r

BVM.Nat.Oct Eufemia.&.soc Lambert,b Matthew,a Maurice.&.soc Thecla,v Firminius,b Cosmas.&.Dam Michael,arch (§.s) Jerome,p Germanus.&.Remigius Thms;H Francis,c Fides,vm Mark,pope Denis.&.soc (§.t) Paulinus,B Nichasius.&.soc Wilfrid.B.dep Edward,k.transl Calixtus,P Wulfrann,b Luke,e Relics

Bate

Correct f.

Headers

v:1r v:2r v:3r v:4r v:5v

f.461r f.462r f.463r f.464r f.466v

f.453r

Bodleian copy (§.v) John;Bev.tr

v:1r

x:1r x:1v x:2r x:3r x:3v x:4r27 x:7r x:8r

Bate

f.453r f.453v f.454r f.455r f.455v f.456r f.459r f.460r

Correct f.

Headers

t:7r t:7v t:8r

Bate

Bate copy (§.x) Eustachius,m Leonard,abb Willebrord,b Theodorus,m Martin Brictius,b Machutus (§.v) John;Bev.tr Simon.&.Jude,aa Quentin,m All.Ss.v All.Souls

f.451r f.451v f.452v

Correct f.

Austraberta,v Ursula Romanus,B (§.u not used)

Headers

Bodl.

t:7r t:7v26 t:8r

Bodl.

114 appendix 1

f.454r f.455r f.456r f.458v f.461r f.461v f.462r f.463r f.463v f.464r f.467r f.468r

Simon.&.Jude,aa Quentin,m All.Ss.v All.Souls (§.x) Eustachius,m Leonard,abb Willebrord,b Theodorus,m Martin Brictius,b Machutus

Bate v:2r v:3r v:4r v:5v x:1r x:1v x:2r x:3r x:3v x:4r28 x:7r x:8r

Bodl.

28 The header first has pape: subsequently and correctly, epi.

Correct f.

Headers

Tabula:

f.469r f.469v f.470r f.470v f.471v f.473v f.475v f.477v f.478v

Correct f.

ate copy: in effect, ff.479–480 B Bodleian copy: 2 stubs

(§.y) Edmund,B Anianus,b Martin.Oct Edmund,k.Oct Cecilia Clement Catharine Linus,pope SW woodcut

Both copies

Headers

y:1r y:1v y:2r y:2v y:3v y:5v y:7v y:v9 y:10v

Bate

y:1r y:1v y:2r y:2v y:3v y:5v y:7v y:v9 y:10v

Bodl.

inventories 115

appendix 2 the sources of the York office

¶1001 no catalogue that includes multiple sources can describe any of them as fully as might be necessary. the present study, devoted principally to a single book, is sufficient evidence for that assertion. it is thus obviously unfair to excoriate cataloguers whose less than comprehensive presentations can lead to ambiguity. each of the books listed in this appendix deserves comprehensive examination. one or two of the manuscripts are described more fully in chapter 6. for the prints later than 1493 we include a comprehensive review of the literature. we have tried here, then, to clarify as far as possible within the scope of a catalogue and, in the case of the printed books, where there are multiple copies of the ‘same’ book, to offer suggestions for reducing ambiguity. to realize this aim, we rely mostly on the observable features of the books, complemented by the printed words in the descriptions of them, especially when the latter conflict with or differ from the former. unless it can be demonstrated that the subsequent history of a book contributes specifically to its secure identification, that history is perhaps not relevant in a catalogue, and is more properly a feature of a monograph. the convoluted and uncertain history of the copies of the 1493 Breviary is such a case. ManusCripts of York use ¶1002 a 14th century ordo of 1398–1405 is published in the henry Bradshaw society series.1 for st Mary’s abbey, York, it is monastic and thus quite different from the secular use of York. 1 The Ordinal and Customary of the Abbey of Saint Mary, York ed. laurentia Mclachlan and John B.l.tolhurst, henry Bradshaw society 73 (london 1936)

the sources of the York office

117

the list below gives all the known antiphonals and Breviaries of the York office liturgy, as known at present. other books such as psalters, hymnals, and Manuals are not included. the library siglum by which they are referred to is flush right: to this will be appended the manuscript number with other material to make it unambiguous. for a general explanation of the system of library sigla, see lMlo Texts ¶205–16. as is usual for liturgical books, secure knowledge is often minimal or uncertain as to the use but especially as regards the dating and place of use. the use here is known to be or probably is that of the diocese of York. of those sources known to the authors and used for this project, marked with an asterisk*, one or two, on cursory examination of the sungtexts and lessons, in particular along with other well-known liturgical characteristics, do not appear to belong to that use and will require further research. that research could be very protracted. the manuscripts for which the connection to York is the most dubious appear in a section at the end. as we observed in the section on the office of thomas Becket, the sequence and choice of sungtexts and of lessons, in particular, distinguish the use of York from that of sarum. indicated by the note ‘not in lMlo’ are manuscripts hughes has not seen. in only one manuscript, Dublin, trinity College 85, is the distribution exactly like that of the later printed volumes. in other cases, the sungtexts are identical, but the distribution of the lessons differs. in some cases, the Becket arrangement suggests that other evidence for York use is perhaps unreliable. other evidence from the kalendars and litanies of these witnesses, prepared by Matthew salisbury, is shown.2 all sources except one are recorded under York in the database compiled by nigel J. Morgan, who graciously gave us permission to use this material. where no other bibliographical reference appears, the source is his database. ker’s Medieval manuscripts in British libraries (MMBl) has detailed descriptions, all of which confirm that the book is of York use. in the Corpus Antiphonalium Officii these sources are simply listed.3 van Dijk’s unpublished typescript catalogue of liturgical manuscripts in the Bodleian library has brief decriptions and contents, and some account of the structure. Diane Droste’s dissertation is concerned with the notation of the sarum use but contains information about three of the 2 see Matthew salisbury The Use of York: characteristics of the medieval liturgical Office in York. Borthwick papers 113 (Borthwick institute: York 2008). 3 Cao vol.v 8, 10, 18

118

appendix 2

manuscripts listed below (Bodleian library, eoB laud.misc.299; British library, elB 28598; and Cambridge university library, eCu 2602).4 the asterisk (*) indicates those sources used for this project, recorded in the databases compiled by hughes, and published in lMlo Sources and Chants, usually with description and an extensive inventory of feasts. ¶1003 Eire Dublin, trinity College library rDt * – ms 85 (B.3.9) Breviary, 15th century frere BMl vol.ii p.64 #722; Colker vol.i p.152; M3o ¶895 and ¶895n43 • Notandum quod infra diocesim [diocisisim Colker] Eborac. festum dedicationis celebrabitur prima Dominica post festum Comm. S. Pauli tanquam principale (f.158v: Colker says 162v). william, John of Beverley, and wilfrid are prominent. • Becket lessons and sungtexts are exactly as those in printed York Breviaries. * – ms 87 (B.3.11) Breviary, winter, 14th/15th century frere BMl vol.ii p.64 #723; Colker vol.i p.156 • temporale only, but includes the translation of william of York (f.41v–42v: see ¶411). • the distribution of the Becket York lessons is identical to that of eoB laud.misc.84. ¶1004 England arundel, Castle library earC * – ms s.n. the York antiphonal, rubricated, 15th century, for the collegiate chapel of st Mary’s and holy angels • MlgB p.217 #333; M3o ¶896 & 4000 ¶1005 Cambridge, university library * – ms 3110 Breviary, 15th century • frere BMl vol.ii p.78 #763 • william of York is in place.

4 Diane l. Droste The musical notation and transmission of the music of the Sarum Use, 1225–1500 (phD diss. university of toronto 1983)

eCu

the sources of the York office

¶1006 Durham university library * – ms Cosin v.i.2 noted Breviary, rudby parish church everingham, Coll. lord herries – antiphonal • not in lMlo. now known to be the York antiphonal in arundel Castle, above.

119

eDu

leeds university, Brotherton Collection eleedsu * ripon cathedral ms 8, Choir psalter, 1418 (ff.3–5); use of ripon • on long-term loan from ripon cathedral • for use at ripon (ff.176): it is a liturgical psalter, but has the complete office for wilfrid, including his translation; william and John of Beverley are prominent in the kalendar. MMBl vol iv pp.211–13. ripon is in the diocese of York, and ker therefore calls it a York psalter.5 ¶1007 london, British library elB * – add.30511 Breviary, sanctorale, lacks the temporale, 14th century M3o ¶895n43 • william of York prominent • since this lacks the temporale, the material for the main office of Becket is not known. * – add.34190 fragments of a Breviary, 1400.ca • not in lMlo. salisbury reports that other fragments of this book are in elB egerton 2025. the two sources together contain most of the components of a complete Breviary. • … of York use … containing portions of the following: psalter; sanctorale; temporale. Cf. lawley’s edition vol.i cols.85–46, 751–803; vol.ii cols.147–215, 543–625.6 • nothing in the British library description documents the association with York. however, the part of the temporale that survives should contain the office of thomas Becket and may thus prove to be useful in assignation (¶508–9).

5 MMBl vol.iv 211 6 excerpted by permission of the British library: the online catalogue gives pp. where cols is correct.

120

appendix 2

* – add.37511 diurnal Breviary, 14th century • not in lMlo. • of York or some allied use. imperfect. the contents are: temporale, imperfect. sanctorale, imperfect at the end, includes Jan.–nov. and the feasts of wilfrid (translation), John of Beverley, william, frideswide and edmund (archbishop of Canterbury).7 these feasts are the only indication of any connection to York. * – add.38624 Breviary, lacks the temporale, early 15th century • John of Beverley and william of York prominent • since this lacks the temporale, the material for the main office of Becket is not known. • some variants with lawley’s edition are noted in the British library catalogue: the lessons are in most cases longer (sometimes more than twice as long), fuller, and differently divided, e.g., ss. william (ff. 34–42b, cf. lawley’s edition vol.ii cols.295–319) … wilfrid (ff. 161b–163, cf. ib. cols.615–18). as in the edition, vol.ii col.437, there is a long rubric after st peter ad vincula, containing the phrase in matrici ecclesia Eboracensi (f.90, col.2).8 * – egerton.2025. see elB add.34190. ¶1008 london, lambeth palace library ell * – ms sion ms 1 the skelton noted Breviary, 14/15th century (olim sion College ms arc.l.40.2/l.1), for skelton church (¶612) • MMBl vol.i p.264; M3o ¶895n43; hughes, facsimile • this is clearly a York book, from the kalendar obits, the presence of the office for william of York (twice), and feasts for the other York archbishops, yet the Dedication feast in early July is lacking, and the lessons for Becket, although drawn from the same source, are not distributed in the same way as those of the later printed books. the book seems to have been used at skelton, near York, rather than at the Minster. the second office for william is inserted between the psalter and Common of saints, as in eoB laud.misc.84. 7 excerpted by permission of the British library. 8 excerpted [and adapted for this volume] by permission of the British library: the online catalogue gives pp. where cols is correct.

the sources of the York office

121

¶1009 oxford, Bodleian library eoB * – ms gough.liturg.1 rubricated noted Breviary, sanctorale, 14th century, 1400.ca • also gough Missals 36 • frere BMl vol.i p.14 #30; van Dijk vol.ii p.229; pächt and alexander vol.iii #711 • John of Beverley and william of York prominent, but crossed through • since this lacks the temporale, the material for the main office of Becket is not known. * – ms gough Missals 36 see gough.liturg.1 * – ms laud.misc.84 Breviary, late 14th century, after 1387 • frere #31 p.14; van Dijk vol.ii p.254; pächt and alexander vol.iii #810; huglo 22;9 M3o ¶895n43 • York use confirmed by the lessons for Becket; kalendar obits; william of York is added between the psalter and Common of saints (see ell ms sion 1), along with Marian feast, and the office for saints peter and paul (even though that is also in the sanctorale): Ebor. f.162v. • the distribution of the Becket York lessons is nearly identical to that of rDt 87. ¶1010 ripon, Minster library eripM * – ms 8 (incorrectly referred to as 7) (Dean and Chap. arch 432) Breviary fragment, 1450.ca • not in lMlo. Morgan cites MMBl vol.iv, but on p.211 the entries skip from ms 6 to 8. now on long-term deposit in the Brotherton library of the university of leeds (above). sotheby’s • not in lMlo. – 59/06/15 lot 193 Breviary, 1425.ca (present location unknown). this lot was bought by Maggs Brothers, of Berkeley square.

9 Michel huglo Les Tonaires: inventaire, analyse, comparaison, publications de la société française de Musicologie ser.3 vol.2 (paris 1971)

122

appendix 2

– 80/06/24 lot 74

Breviary, 1425.ca (present location unknown). this lot was bought by Bernard Quaritch ltd. two other books sold at sotheby’s in 1965 and 1966 are now in the York Minster library (mss add.68 and add.115 respectively: MMBl vol.iv pp.815, 821). traylen • not in lMlo. – catalogue 27, 1953, no.40 Breviary, 1400.ca (present location unknown). this firm of booksellers in guildford has gone out of business. ¶1011 York Minster, Chapter library eYC * – add.7 (recte 70: see below) Breviary, first half 15th century * – add.68 Breviary (olim helmingham hall library ms 60) • MMBl vol.iv pp.813–15; not in lMlo * – add.69 noted Breviary, late 15th century • MMBl vol.iv pp.816–18; M3o ¶895n43 • Most of the Becket office is missing. enough remains of Matins lessons 1 & 2 to ascertain that they are the same as those of the later printed books. * – add.70 Breviary, 15th century, harewood parish church • MMBl vol.iv pp.818–20; M3o ¶895n43 • John of Beverley, but william and paulinus of York cut out • this has the York office for Becket, but the distribution of lessons is not that of the printed editions. * – add.115 Breviary, 1450.ca • MMBl vol.iv pp.820–21; not in lMlo • John of Beverley * – add.383 Breviary, early 15th century • MMBl vol.iv pp.822–3; not in lMlo. * – ms Xvi.o.9 Breviary & Missal 14/15th century: frere vol.ii p.3 #553 • MMBl vol.iv pp.756–9; M3o ¶895n43 • John of Beverley and william of York (plus a Mass for william) • the sungtexts for Becket are those of York. the lessons are drawn from the same source as other York sources, but are distributed quite differently. * – ms Xvi.o.23 Breviary, summer, 14th century: frere vol.ii p.3 #554 • MMBl vol.iv pp.763–4; M3o ¶895n43

the sources of the York office

123

• John of Beverley and william of York • since this is the summer volume, information about the main office for Becket is not available. ¶1012 United States new York City, grolier Club – ms 3 Breviary, 1325–50.ca • de ricci vol.ii p.1289 #24417; not in lMlo.

ungr

illinois, urbana, university of illinois library uiuu – ms 130 Breviary, late 14th century • not in lMlo. • the manuscript was purchased after the most recent supplement to de ricci and consequently is not listed. • the library cites a description from the bookseller Quaritch:10 Breviarium ad usum eboracensem. 8vo. (6 7/8 x 4 1/2 ins.), english Manuscript on vellum, ff. 268, lacking some 11 leaves; written in an untidy gothic hand, double columns of 36 lines to a column, rubricated throughout; old calf. late 14th or early 15th cent. Copies of the York Breviary, whether printed or manuscript, are of great rarity. the present manuscript would appear to be the second of three volumes. it contains the services from Dominica ii post pascha to the end of the various Commemorations, including the Calendar, psalterium and also the Commune apostolorum. the text agrees substantially, although with many interesting variations, with that published by the surtees society in the York Breviary, 1871–2.

other ManusCripts ¶1013 some of the sources listed here have no connection with York. we include them because they appear in other catalogues as possible York books. Cambridge, university library eCu * – ms 2602 antiphonal, with chapters and prayers 14th century 1300? after 1319. said to be for springfield 10 reproduced by permission of Quaritch.

124

appendix 2

• frere BMl vol.ii p.80; Droste p.331 • the ninth antiphon and the last four responsories (all that remain) of the Becket Matins are not those of the York use (see ¶508). london, British library elB * – add.28598, 13th century, antiphonal • listed by Morgan, but my information and Droste’s investigation, pp.367–8 passim, suggest ely. i see nothing relevant to York. M3o ¶895n43. * – harley.2785 Breviary, 15th century, 1415–80 • Morgan cites this as 2885; M3o ¶895n43. • John of Beverley prominent, but the ninth antiphon, the sequence of responsories, and the lessons of the Becket Matins do not correspond to the York use (see ¶508–9). other than John, none of the York saints are in the kalendar. interestingly, however, the translation of st nicholas on 9 May has been added to the kalendar, close to that of John on 7 May. we have commented on this connection in ¶502 and 608. nottingham university (Manuscripts and special Collections) enottu * – the wollaton antiphonal written 1410–60 • used at st leonard’s church, wollaton, 1460–1549. • a beautiful book with numerous heraldic illuminations • obviously written as a sarum book, but when used at wollaton, in the diocese of York, all the usual York feasts were added to the kalendar. a fuller description is in ¶609–10. oxford, Bodleian library eoB * – ms laud.misc.299 noted Breviary, late 14th century, early 15th century, with later additions, and York connections • not in Morgan; frere vol.i p.12 #26; van Dijk vol.ii p.233; MlgB p.47 #383; Droste pp.396–9; M3o ¶895n43 • this is a confusing book. it is essentially of sarum use, as noted on f.469, with a kalendar in a different hand, where the dedication of the church of launton, oxfordshire, is recorded. a marginal addition speaks of kingston. at the end is a new section, which transmits the three new offices, the transfiguration, visitation of the virgin, and the holy name of Jesus.

the sources of the York office

125

Between this section and the end of the sanctorale is another added section of lessons and prayers which include those for the translation of st nicholas, John of Beverley and his translation, and for thomas of hereford, another saint usually found in the York sanctorale. the association of the first two of these saints in the 1493 books has been noted in ¶502 and 608. another addition, for wenefred, is said to be non Sarum sed provinciale Cantuariensis. this book, then, seems to have been adapted for various locations, possibly including York, although the lack of material for william argues against York as a principal place of use. • Most of the main office for Becket has been cut out. the translation office gives incipits for proper sungtexts, drawn from those of the main office, and this is contrary to York usage for the translation.

126

appendix 2

printeD Books (the forMat of the Catalogue) ¶1014 two copies of the Breviary of 1493 are complete. Complete and correct is our information about those copies. we have not seen the Cambridge fragments, now lost. attempting to fulfil our wish to present a comprehensive list of York books, we list the later prints. But, as we noted at the beginning of this study, trying to clarify the various versions, locations, reprints, and copies of early printed Breviaries in general drove us to distraction and forced us to abandon that project. numerous difficulties remain with respect to the later printed sources after 1493. some of these are laid out in ¶614–15 and below in the details of the books themselves. to resolve these confusions, page-by-page examination of each copy will be required. in view of borrowings, reprintings, and bindings of sections from different dates, it may be necessary in some cases to prepare catalogues of individual sections of early printed Breviaries. after 1493, then, the list promises only to be comprehensive and to provide a reference to the source of our information rather than to provide an unambiguous assignation. Yet even this aim has been hard to achieve completely. to reduce confusion as far as possible, we have devised a method of presentation so as to make as clear as possible the validity of the information, and of the sources of that information. it resembles a legal document in which sections, paragraphs, and clauses are ranked and numbered. in it, each element of information is placed in a category or a subcategory precisely and consistently. furthermore, as far as possible each element is on a separate line, or in a separate paragraph. Dense blocks of letters, numbers, and symbols, especially if undifferentiated by type, are a hindrance to the user.1 prodigal of paper they may be: such layouts as those in the following pages may present impossible financial circumstances for publishers of more extensive catalogues and are perhaps best regarded as exemplifying how digital presentation might appear on screen or in printouts of particular entries. Technology or typewriter? ¶1015 here, we faced a common question: should we use available technology, or simply type the information? even the latter process nowadays involves a word processor. But should the computer be used simply as a typewriter? Most word-processing programs include an outline routine 1 lMlo Sources and Chants ¶521–5

the sources of the York office

127

of the kind that is ideal for our purposes. the convenience of digital technology in promoting consistency, and automating a difficult task, then, outweighed the slight disadvantage of the sort that often accompanies a technological solution: in this case, the unnecessary presence of elements with no information. empty elements for some elements of the outline there will be no information. the routine with which this outline was constructed does not allow for the deletion or absence of elements without changing the rank of subsequent elements. there is, however, an advantage to retaining empty elements: these blanks allow us to indicate clearly where major descriptive work is required. where no information is printed, it is possible to show the reason why, whether it be an unsuccessful search, a lack of relevance, or a lacuna. repetition if it can be established that several copies printed on a particular date are indeed identical, they can be described together, with a comment stating that circumstance. since the identity of copies later than 1493 has not always been established, each copy must be treated as though it were a manuscript and described separately. inevitably, though, since copies usually vary only in small details, that process involves a huge amount of repetition. the outline presentation allows unambiguous cross-references to material already recorded, so that much tedious entry and reading of repeated data is avoided. each entry begins with a heading. this conforms to the Catalogue heading described in ¶420. in english or a local language, it should give the date, the kind of book, the number of volumes, the format, printer, and place. each entry has three sections, some of which may be repeated as necessary: some general notes, a description of the book(s), and bibliographical references. in the second of these, each book is described separately. in addition, each description is differentiated by the present location of the book in question. the location is either known, from personal observation or a reliable modern catalogue, or unconfirmed when the information is dated or sketchy, or unknown. But given the chaos of the bibliographical support for such information, the facts are sometimes only as good as our sources. in the third category, bibliographical references, we have attempted to be completely comprehensive in our listing, even if we have not seen

128

appendix 2

every reference. to cite but one example, some important catalogues refer to BpC. even though this is said to be a major reference in the rare books field, it took some effort to discover that this is Book Prices Current, which is a booksellers’ catalogue which can offer useful information about the whereabouts of copies. Many sources in which references are to be found, such as adams and iCep, are simply listings of books, with little or no other information. and, as we have noted elsewhere, it is apparent that such listings merely repeat earlier ones. it is essential to discriminate between those texts that offer information that is different from or expands on the full descriptions. three categories of reference are therefore shown: full descriptions, brief descriptions, and ‘notice only.’ in a few cases, a fourth category, ‘not seen,’ has been necessary. all three of the principal categories of bibliography are kept in the entries, even though for some of them no references are present. A catalogue template ¶1016 Conventional formats such as istC provide a convenient means for rapid perusal, and for bibliographers who need to identify a book quickly in difficult circumstances. the template below, although less suitable for rapid study, offers a level of detail which may be necessary. here, then, is the structure of an entry: Date general heading, bold 14 pt., with format, printer, and place this material, which should reproduce the imprint, should be in the vernacular, to conform with our suggestions for Catalogue headings, ¶420. 1. notes a. in miscellaneous subcategories as necessary. uMi microfilm notes are here. 2. locations (copies that have been seen) a. Library and shelfmark, volume (examined in situ, in film, on fiche, or on eeBo) i. Title-page this element, and the next four elements, should be presented in one of the conventional methods for such information. we adopt these: the expansion of abbreviations is in italic; line breaks are indicated with ||; red text is underlined. where this material is taken from secondary sources and we are uncertain of the circumstances, we have followed the layout of the secondary source, with the notation ‘(not seen)’ in the appropriate places.

the sources of the York office

ii.

3. 4. 5.

6.

129

Opening text the text on the page after the title-page, provided it conveys information specific to identifying the book. the first words of the second folio are another conventional means of identification. iii. Register information in the book about its structure iv. Colophon final information in the book, identifying it. there may be colophons at the end of major sections of the book: these will be noted as they occur in the description. v. Final text the final words, if any, after the colophon, or to identify the last text of incomplete books vi. Sponsor the name of the person who commissioned or paid for the book: noted impensis or expensis in many colophons vii. Size; foliation; headers; columns; lines, etc. information on the typeface would be included here, if possible (see ¶452–3); otherwise, it might be suitable to supply a facsimile. viii. Signatures each major section of the book (in bold) described in terms of signatures, folio numbers, omissions, defects in photographic reproductions. unless the context is obvious, the symbol § and a dot precede signature numbers. ix. other notes as necessary b. level 2a, and its subsections, repeated as necessary locations (not seen) with subsections as in section 2 locations (unconfirmed) with subsections as in section 2 locations (unknown) with subsections as in section 2. here, we have kept the names of previous owners, often well-known 19thcentury liturgical scholars, hoping that some project will determine where such books are to be found nowadays. Many will have gone to one of the major libraries. enquiries to the major libraries in england about the donation of such liturgical books have so far been largely unproductive. Bibliography (authors bold) summary contents a. (full description) i. one subsection for each reference b. (brief description) i. as 6.a.i (preceded by Date as in the 14 pt header that begins this overall entry) c. (notice only) as 6.a.i d. (not seen)

130

appendix 2

printeD sourCes (the Catalogue: introDuCtion) ¶1017 in a few categories, where we have presented substantial information in the text, rather than repeat extensive material, we have entered a cross-reference as in 2.b.i and ii for the 1493 book. in an independent catalogue, of course, such matter would have to be within or with the catalogue. in the present case, for instance, details about the fragments of 1493 and about its history are dealt with in the preceding chapters. the asterisk (*) indicates an entry for which the description is as complete as it is possible to make it, from personal inspection of the book. Lawley’s lists ¶1018 in his edition, lawley gives two lists of York printed books derived from other scholars, and assigns letters to each book. after the first list he describes the books in words.2 unfortunately, the descriptions are not always complete, and there are discrepancies. under n, for instance, he says that the British Museum purchased the volume in 1859. our examination of l discloses the presence, twice, of a modern stamp: 1 oC 59. we may conclude that this refers to the purchase of a different volume in the same year, perhaps in the same transaction. lawley does not report that for l. under e, lawley states that the visitation office in B and l is inserted after, and in e before, the sanctorale. in fact, in l it is also before the sanctorale. lawley’s B apparently has a kalendar of 1517, although the rest of the book is of 1526.3 in his second list, lawley4 gives the sections contained in the publications of various dates, and where certain sections are not contained in the existing copies, he assumes appropriately that ‘no copy [is] known’, presumably disappeared. Notes on the bibliographical references ¶1019 the Ecclesiologist, vol. 10, shown below as Eccl.X, should not be confused with The Ecclesiologist: notes and queries on Christian antiquities. alfred w. pollard edited the Catalogue of breviaries printed in the XVth century now in the British Museum (1924) and also the first edition of stC, which is sometimes referred to simply as ‘pollard.’ to avoid confusion, the former is referred to below as elB.1924. 2 lawley vol.i xiii 3 ibid. vol.ii xii 4 ibid.

the sources of the York office

131

in almost every catalogue, a book is identified by a number specific to that catalogue. the 1493 Breviary is referred to variously as #59, #B-535, #15856, #1296, #217, #3834, #121, #5333, #2035, #1b01158600, #estCCs117104. this is an unfortunate state of affairs. it is doubly unfortunate when such numbers are not preceded by no. or #, and are accompanied by 1) page numbers similarly lacking a designation such as p and perhaps 2) also by a date, as in the case of Bohatta, where 1937 or some other clarifying term must be added. Catalogue numbers below are always preceded by #, arabic page numbers by p., column numbers by col., folio numbers by f., and dates are within parentheses. very occasionally, for the few works not consulted, such as edouard frère, the reference cannot be established and the number is left unqualified. Summary of descriptions ¶1020 in addition to discriminating the bibliographical references by category, which is partly a matter of subjective judgment, we have appended a highly abbreviated formula to the entry, in small print within brackets flush right so that it is not too obtrusive. the formula shows as precisely as possible what information each reference transmits. although unpalatable, these strings of characters present a concise and quickly accessible summary for those whose wish to use them. lower-case letters in these formulas indicate incomplete or ambiguous information. Care must be taken to ensure that characters such as l (lowercase l), 1 (one), and i are not confused. the information is added as far as possible in the order presented in the catalogue (this cannot always be precise, since various bits of information are often interspersed). 8 or 12 or 16 or 2 indicates format B Bibliography C Contents D Date (month and day) e end (last words) f folios g binding numeral h heading (assigned by the catalogue) i imprint (title-page, opening page, colophon [including register]) l locations (lowercase: now not known. see ? below) n notes o opening (words after the title-page) p printer

132

appendix 2

r s t v

reference only structure (signatures) and layout in columns and lines title (on title-page) volume(s) (winter or summer: lowercase, only states the number of volumes) w where printed X eXpensis (at the expense of) Y Year (lowercase: uncertain) Z siZe ? indicates that the reference is to a former private owner: some of these volumes may now be one of the major libraries. an entry such as [TlCI12s] would signify that the secondary reference to which this applies gives full information about the T title-page, C contents, 12 format, and I imprint, and incomplete information about the l location(s) and s structure. ¶1021 eoB eCu elB eYC

Sigla Bodleian library Cambridge university library British library York Minster Chapter library

the identifying material on the title-page, opening page, colophon, and final page are minutely specified for 1493, as we suggest should always be the case, but not for the later prints, for which the precise cataloguing work has yet to be done. in these cases, title and colophon material is derived from various catalogues, which do not always agree with each other, and for which the line breaks, colours, and abbreviations are not always shown, and cannot therefore be guaranteed here. Signatures ¶1022 in contrast to some catalogues of printed books, we follow the normal convention that brackets [ ] apply to omissions and editorial insertions or replacements for missing material. to us [18] is unintuitive as an indication that the signature number is lacking even though the gathering itself is present. some matters must be laid out in words. to avoid confusion between footnotes and the superscript numbers for signatures, such references in older catalogues are between parentheses ( ). a few other footnotes are within narrative text.

the sources of the York office

133

Brackets [ ]. these indicate that unspecified material, or the complete material within the brackets (sometimes editorially supplied or with editorial comments), is omitted: it is not appropriate to include within the brackets material that is only partly omitted (see ¶432 in two places) or (as at ¶439) that is inconsistent even within the same line. Signatures. these are entered, following one modern convention, as follows. where the word ‘signature’ appears, the symbol § is unnecessary. to the number or letter identifying the signature is appended a superscript number showing the number of leaves: p8. Consecutive signatures of the same kind are consolidated: aa–pp8. interruptions or defects in the sequence, whether in the book itself or in photographic reproductions, are noted where they occur. Leaves. for specific leaves of a signature we use the method outlined in the inventories ¶905: §.k:1,2 for leaves 1 and 2 of signature k; §.32:4v for the verso of the fourth leaf of signature 32; §.a:2–4 for leaves 2 to 4 of signature a. Index ¶1023 in the index of this book, references to the entries in the catalogue will take the form of this paragraph number, 1023, followed by the date (i.e., 1493) and by the section number within the entry. thus uMi and Coates immediately below are indexed as 1023.1493.1. Crossreferences to entries within this catalogue take the form of 1493.2.b.iv, that is, the colophon of the Bate copy of 1493, below. printeD sourCes (the Catalogue) * 1493

Breviary [Hamman, Venice, May 1]

1. preliminary notes a. uMi 106:07 b. for details of the fragments, see ¶405–8. c. Coates’s inventory is of the ‘ideal’ copy (see ¶403, note 6). 2. locations (seen) a. EOB gough [Missals] 6 (totum) (examined in situ, in film, on fiche, and on eeBo) i. Title-page: Breviarium secundum vsum || ecclesie eboracensis ii. opening text (f.2): ¶ in nomine sancte et indi||vidue trinitatis. amen. inci||pit ordo Breviarii secundum mo||rem & consuetudinem ecclesie || eboracensis anglicane.

134

appendix 2

iii. Register: none iv. Colophon (f.478v: §.y:10v): .s. .w. separated by a woodcut of st william v. Final text: none (leaves missing) vi. Sponsor: the imprint, 1493.2.b.iv, mentions only frederick egmundt (various spellings) but see ¶401. vii. Size, etc.: foliated, with heads, 2 cols., 36 lines viii. Signatures: Temporale 1–258 (f.1) • Kalendar 268 [lacks signature and folio numbers] • Psalter 27–338 (f.209) Common of Saints 348 3512 (f.265) • Sanctorale a–x8 y12 [lacks y:11,12] (f.301) b. Loughborough University, Bate Collection (totum) (examined in situ) i. Title-page: as 1493.2.a ii. Opening (f.2): as 1493.2.a iii. Register: none iv. Colophon (f.478v: §.y:10v): Breviarium secundum morem et consuetudinem sancte ecclesie eboracensis anglicane: ad laudem et gloriam sanctissime trinitatis: intemerate quoque genitricis dei virginis marie: totiusque hyerarchie celestis: ipsiusque sacrosancte ecclesie eboracensis || cleri deuotissime reverentiam et honorem: singulari cura ac || diligentia impensisque frederici egmundt bene revisum emen||datumque: feliciter est explicitum. impressum venetijs per io||hannem hamman de landoia dictum hertzog: limpidissimis: ut cernitis: caracteribus: || anno salutis post millesimum quaterque || centesimum nonagesimotertio. kalendas Madii. and the .S. .W. device as in the Bodleian copy. v. Final text (f.479–80: y:11–12): tabule super breuiarium || eboracensis. comoditatem repe||riendi celeriuscule prestantes: … finit tabula vi. Sponsor: ed. friedrich egmondt and expensis friedrich egmondt (from 1493.2.b.iv) vii. Size, etc.: as 1493.2.a viii. Signatures: as 1493.2.a, but signatures x and v reversed, and signature y is complete. c. ELB fragments ia.23357 (examined in situ) • 145 × 99 mm; leaves 49–56 cropped, leaf 129 much mutilated.

the sources of the York office

•

3.

4. 5. 6.

135

signature 7, ff.49–56 and 17, ff.129, 132 (sic), 131, 123–135 d. EOB fragments shelfmark inc.c.i4.9 • signature 32:1,4,6,7 (ff.249–50, 254–55) from the psalter • signature k:1,2,7,8 (ff.373–4, 379–80) from the sanctorale e. Ushaw College fragments, shelf mark Xviii.C.5.8 (photographs examined) • endpapers in peter lombard’s Sententiarum textus (Basel: l. hornken & adam peter de langendorff, 20 Jan. 1516). • ff.161 and 162 (the latter numbered 62) from the temporale locations (not seen) a. ECU fragments (lost?) • signature 35:5–7 (ff.278–280) from the Common of saints • ‘liber J[o]annis gedge’ locations (unconfirmed) locations (unknown) Bibliography a. (full description) i. Duff p.17 #59 [H8PXWDYSCnFTOIELn] ii. Coates p.676 #B-535 (the Bodleian library book) [HCsWPXDY8CSnBG & history] iii. GW p.290 #5333 [HXWPnDY8FCSTOIEnBL & typeface info] iv. Lawley vol.ii p.xii [HYWPX8Vcl] v. ELB.1924 p.424 (the complete book) [HDYTfIXWPYDE8Sfnb & typeface info] vi. ELB.1924 p.424 (the British library fragments) [ZSFn] b. (brief description) i. STC #15856 [HTV8WPXYDLb] ii. Sander p.232 #1296 [HWPXDY8TECFSGnB & typeface info] iii. Bohatta (1911) p.14 #217 [HWPYD8fSnB] c. (notice only) i. Thoresby p.546 [HWY8nc] ii. Brunet p.1233 [HWPY8b] iii. Eccl.X. p.262 [HY8WPl] iv. Hain p.530 #3834 [HCfWY8] v. Panzer p.346 #1734 [TCfWY8] vi. Maittaire vol.4 part 2 (4.2) p.568 [TCf8WY] vii. Sayle p.62 #121 [HWDY8 & WPHDY8b]

136

appendix 2

viii. Proctor p.341–2 #5189 [DYHX8l & typeface info] ix. Bohatta (1937) p.197 #5333 [r] x. Grässe vol.i p.534 [HWPY8Cf, foliation referred to as pages] xi. Lowndes p.267 [H8YWPCf, foliation referred to as pages] xii. Oates p.351 #2035 (the Cambridge library fragments) [H8ZDYBn, ‘Liber J[o]annis Gedge’] xiii. ISTC #1b01158600 [HWPXDY8BL] xiv. ESTC #estCCs117104 [HTWIXPYf8Lnb] xv. EEBO #estCCs117104 (identical) [HTWIXPYf8Lnb] * 1507?

Breviary, 8o , 2 vols [Violette, Rouen]

1. preliminary notes a. lawley says there was a french Breviary, printed ‘about’ 1507. stC and adams concur with c.1507. Bohatta (1937), amiet, and sayle do not add circa. only a single copy is known. since this copy lacks the imprint, information about printer and place must derive from some other evidence, not cited in any of the catalogues. see this catalogue under 1509. i. while it cannot be otherwise corroborated, lawley’s assignment of a publication year may be tenuously supported by references to other books produced by the printer pierre violette in rouen for gerard wansfort of York. a colophon of his Expositio hymnorum places its publication in June 1507, suggesting that the relationship existed at least as early as this date. see r. Davies, A memoir of the York press (1868). b. winter and summer volumes. the Cambridge copy on the uMi film, however, is a totum, or at least has the two volumes bound, without new title-pages, into one: there is a winter colophon in the middle of the sanctorale. c. uMi 65:2 2. locations (seen) a. ECU syn.8.50.11 (on film, but without shelfmark on the book itself: see 1507.5 below) i. Title-page: none ii. Opening text: ¶ in nomine sancte et in||dividue trinitatis. amen. || incipit ordo Breviarii secund||um usum & consuetudinem || ecclesie eboracensis anglica||ne. iii. Register: none

the sources of the York office

iv. v.

137

Colophon: none Final text: the Magnificat antiphon for second vespers of st katharine, Prudens et vigilans … Dei filio. ps. Magnificat vi. Sponsor : none (Bohatta 1937 gives impensis Guerardo Wansfort) vii. Size, etc.: 140 × 90 mm; no foliation; headings; 2 cols.; 32 lines viii. Signatures mostly numbered only on the first leaf. • Temporale (winter) 16 leaves, unsigned except for handwritten, inconsistent, and multiple roman numerals at the foot of each recto. one signature must be missing, since the next is d–q8. then r–s8: this takes the book to the vigil of easter, the end of the winter half. • (summer) easter begins a new signature, cued with what on the film looks like B38. then bb–mm8. • four blank leaves, replacing missing signature(s), which probably contained at least the Kalendar. • Psalter a–f8 g8 (photographic defect, see below) h–i8 and k:1 Common of Saints remainder of k8 l–M8 ending incomplete in the Common of one virgin. initial inspection of the uMi microfilm around signature g suggested that there were only 7 leaves between signature marks g and h, but the text did not immediately appear to be discontinuous. in fact, the opening that includes g:2v and g:3r appears not to have been photographed. the final text of g:2r anticipates an antiphon of lauds; what appears at the beginning of the next frame is from Deuteronomy 32.34, placing us in the middle of the Canticle of Moses. this is the appointed minor canticle for saturdays in lent, conceivably the last to appear in a list. the missing opening on the film might have outlined all of the options for the canticle, of which there are fourteen (M3o ¶424n50). • Sanctorale (winter) [aa–bb lacking] cc–gg8 hh6 (the first three leaves are numbered h:i, none, ii). Colophon: finis prime partis hu||ius breuiarii scilicet temporis hyemalis de sanctis. • (summer) [aa–oo lacking] pp–qq8 [rr–tt lacking] vv–yy8 zz8 [lacking zz:1,2,7,8, with a handwritten zz:3 on first existing leaf]. ix. the last signature lacks leaves 1 and 2 and their pairs 7 and 8. Coincidentally, the fragments of 1493 in the Bodleian are leaves 1, 2, 7, and 8, but of signature k. see 1493.3.b and ¶408. 3. locations (not seen) 4. locations (unconfirmed)

138

appendix 2

5. locations (unknown). lawley assigns Mr Blew’s copy, which is seriously defective, to this date. Judging from his description, it is the Cambridge copy described under 1507.2.a. But there are two discrepancies. lawley’s description of signature hh is slightly different. More significantly, lawley says the temporale runs from a–r, with no signature missing. Blew’s comments as to what is missing, such as the Commemorations and Benedictions, cited by lawley, must derive either from another copy of 1507 known to him at the time, or from comparison with similar printings of other Breviaries. 6. Bibliography a. (full description) b. (brief description) i. STC #15857 [Hnotv8WPyl] ii. Bohatta (1937) p.197 #2199 [HYHWPX8nlb] iii. Lawley vol.i p.xiii, xv; vol.ii p.xii [HyWPX8Vcl] c. (notice only) i. Sayle p.62 #6232 [HPWY8H] ii. Amiet p.246 #2199 [HYtb] iii. Adams vol.i p.647 #957 [HTVS8WPybl] iv. Ecclesiologist p.25 [HWPXYSN] d. (not seen) 1509

Breviary, fragment?

1. preliminary notes a. the source of this information is now unknown. Could it be the book said to have been printed in 1507, about the date of which there is uncertainty? a Manual for York use was published by wynkyn de worde in london this year.5 and in York, hugo goes printed a pica for York use.6 1517?

Breviary 8o, 2 vols [Olivier (for Violette), Rouen]

1. preliminary notes a. Both lawley and Bohatta (1937) show the date as uncertain. since copies in the Bodleian and York libraries are known (or

5 Book Prices Current (1887) #5099: Manuale quoddam secundum usum matris ecclesiae eboraceñsis, per wynandum de worde, 1509, 4to …; also Duff A century … 52 under gachet. 6 The Ecclesiologist (1888) 25: Pica sive Directorium sacerdotum ad usum Eboracensem. eboraci. hugo goez. 1509, Quarto. 30.l.l.

the sources of the York office

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

139

were known then), we must suppose that precise data in the form of the imprint are lacking in those copies. if that is so, knowledge of a printing in 1517 must derive from some other source. place, printer, and sponsor, impensis Ioannis Gaschet, are apparently secure. locations (seen) locations (not seen) locations (unconfirmed) a. EOB gough 59 (lawley vol.ii p.xii. see 1526) b. EYC X.p.25 (winter) & X.p.8 (summer) (lawley vol.ii p.xii) locations (unknown) Bibliography a. (full description) b. (brief description) i. Lawley vol.ii p.xii [HyWPX8VcL] ii. Bohatta (1937) p.197 #2200 [HyHWPX8b] c. (notice only) i. Ecclesiologist p.26 [HWPXy] d. (not seen) i. Edouard Frère, Manuel vol.i p.152 (1516) 1518?

1. preliminary notes a. the source of this information is no longer known. there is no reason to think that the two sarum Breviaries of this date have any York connections (stC 15814 and 15815). the style of dating used in france from the 11th to 16th century, in which the year begins with easter, may have caused the date of the 1517 book, itself uncertain, to have been confused. 1520 1524

see 1530 and 1533.

Breviary, 2o, 2 vols [printer unknown, Paris]

1. preliminary notes a. Compare the next entry. the sizes are different: in Bohatta’s entry for the York book of 1524, he may have cited the wrong format, fol. instead of octavo. amiet and iCep give insufficient information for an identification, but the latter shows 2o, perhaps following Bohatta.

140

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

appendix 2

locations (seen) locations (not seen) locations (unconfirmed) locations (unknown) Bibliography a. (full description) b. (brief description) c. (notice only) i. Bohatta (1937) p.197 #2201 ii. Amiet p.246 #2201 iii. ICEP vol.iii p.204 #622 iv. Book Prices Current (1887) #3390 (mentioned only in iCep, Bohatta (1937))7 d. (not seen)

[HYHW2vb] [HYHb] [Hn2b] [HnVWY2n]

1524 Breviary, York (Sarum?), 8o, 2 vols [Bonhomme Kerver, Paris, 24 Oct.] 1. preliminary notes a. the eeBo reproduction of stC 15818 has no visible shelfmark (although the opening ‘page’ has the British library ruler). it is a summer book whose kalendar lacks York connections, but with william of York and wilfrid in the sanctorale. it lacks a title-page and colophon. format: 8o, about 175 × 100 mm, which disqualifies it as the previous entry. eeBo, stC 15818, Bohatta, and sayle list it as a sarum book, but that refers only to the kalendar. for physical details, the eeBo description gives ‘[302], lxxx, [263+] leaves; 8o,’ yet says ‘kalendar only’ (twice), with no reference to its York sections and overall character. this would appear to be the Cambridge copy. b. it is said to have connections with York because it is bound with 1555 (eeBo). c. uMi 59:12 d. the printer Bonhomme is kerver’s widow, Byrckman the sponsor. e. sayle says the date is 1526.

7 we thank tawnie olson for providing this information. it may be useful to show exactly what such a commercial description provides: 3390 Breviarium eboracense, cum Calendario, 2 vol. [sic], slightly wormed and wanting titles, cf. ex., Paris, 1524. fol. (538) Quaritch, £20. what cf. ex. and (538) refer to is unexplained.

the sources of the York office

141

2. locations (seen) 3. locations (not seen) a. ECU syn.8.55.169 (sarum kalendar, stC 15818, bound with York temporale, Common, and sanctorale, stC 15860) b. EYC (no shelfmark: sB vol.iii p.xlv says the kalendar and psalter ‘discarded’); Bohatta (1937); stC. lawley says it is assigned to 1524 on the basis of the golden numbers. 4. locations (unconfirmed) 5. locations (unknown) a. Oscott, st Mary’s College (sB vol.iii p.xlv; Bohatta (1937); stC 15818; lawley says this is the kalendar only); h. sherbrooke (sB vol.iii p.xlv, kalendar only) 6. Bibliography a. (full description) b. (brief description) i. STC #15818 = 15817? (listed as sarum) [Hnv8WPXYVDl] ii. Bohatta (1937) p.251 #2686 (listed as sarum) [HYDHWPX8vLb] iii. EEBO #estCs103763 (listed as sarum) [HTWPXYF8lnb] c. (notice only) i. SB vol.iii p.xlv (listed as sarum) [H8YVWPDLc] ii. Sayle p.61 #6188 (listed as sarum) [HPXWY8] * 1526 & 1533

Breviary, 8o, 2 vols [Regnault, Paris, 15 Oct.]

1. preliminary notes a. uMi 74:1: the film has only the British Museum stamp on the title-page, but its introductory ‘page’ gives C.35.b.4 (a British Museum shelfmark). b. reprinted in 1533, but the two are different sizes. c. eccl.X p.262, grässe, lowndes say 12o or in-12. d. lawley describes the two volumes. he assigns the letters e, B, k, l, and C to the winter volume, and r to the summer volume, of the various copies he knew. with respect to the position of the added visitation office he seems to confuse e and l (we do not know about B, C, or k). Copy l is clearly the British library book seen by us, and described below. raine reports three copies in the York Minster library (¶416). the first is said to be a winter volume: the others are identified as id[em] and therefore presumably also winter volumes; the third is a sanctorale only. all have the F which identifies

142

appendix 2

fothergill as the donor. if fothergill’s collection went to York Minster in 1736 and remained there, as raine says,8 lawley must have known of it. with which of the volumes now known can these be identified? assuming that the books have not been relocated, we can identify raine’s first two volumes with eYC X.p.7 and X.p.25 below. none of the books listed below, however, matches the third, a winter sanctorale. 2. locations (seen) a. ELB C.35.b.4 (Winter volume) (seen in situ, and on film). this is lawley’s copy l. i. Title-page: Breviarium ad vsum || insigis: [sic] Metropolitane || ecclesie eboracensis: una cum pica diligentissime || accuratissimeque recogni||tum et emendatum: in pre||clara parrhisiensi aca||demia: in edibus videlicet || francisci regnault im||pressum: ac expensis ho||nesti viri Joannis ga||scheti: Civitate commorantis: hic suum capit exordium || pro tempore hyemali. || anno nostre reparationis || 1526. Cf. Bohatta (1937) and Lawley ii. Opening page (f.2): ¶ in nomine sancte et individue trinitatis. amen. || incipit ordo breviarii secundum vusum eboracensis una || cum ordinali suo quod visitato vocabulo dicitur pica. || siue directorium sacerdotum. iii. Register: ¶ registrum quo codices huis partis colligi debent tale cum || primo temporale signatum his figuris a.b.c.d.e.f.g. h.i.k.l.||m.n.o.p.q.r.s.t. deinde kalendarium / psalterium et comune sub || litteris .a.B.C.D.e.f.g.h.i.k.l.M.||n.o.p. postremo sanctorale hoc modo notatum. a.B||.C.D.e.f.g. et sunt omnes quaterni preter p. quod est duernus. iv. Colophon: ¶ finit pars hyemalis tam de tempore quam de sanctis breviarii || ad vsum insignis ecclesie eboracensis parisiis impressi arte || ac pervigili cura francisci regnault alme universitatis || parisiensis librarii iurati / in vico sancti Jacobi e regione || maturinorum sub signo elephantino commorantis. anno do||mini millesimo quingentesimo .xxvi. decimoquinto mensis octobris. (Compare the minor differences with that of 1533.)

8 raine Catalogue xviii

the sources of the York office

143

Image Not Available

the device of françois regnault.

v. Final text : none vi. Sponsor : for J. gaschet (title-page) vii. Size, etc.: 150 × 90 mm; folio numbers, 1–116 only for the psalter and Common viii. Signatures: numbered on the first four leaves. • Temporale a–e8 [e:7,8 f:1,2 blank (thomas Becket)] f8 [f:5 omitted on film] g–h8 i8 (i:1 replaced by a blank leaf: translation of william of York, remainder crossed through) k–s8 (one opening, with r:7r, filmed twice) t8 • Kalendar 8 Psalter a–k8 (ff.i–lxxx, ending with the colophon finit psalterium secundum vsum ebo||racensem) Common of Saints l–o8 p4 (ff.lxxxi–cxvi) • BVM.Visitation 8 (ending with a woodcut). lawley vol.i p.xvi says this is after the sanctorale: see 1526.4.b.viii.) • Sanctorale a–B8; next signatures (including erroneous duplicate marks): D:1,2 B:3,4 and their pairs (the conjoint leaves of the bifolia); then D:1,2 C:3,4 and their pairs; then e:1,2 D:3 C:4 (different from the preceding one): their pairs are blank. then f8 g8 [first leaf of g blank: film omits the opening with g:3. here, lawley says ‘wants … gj. (it should be g j.)’: the comment in parentheses looks like an editorial correction that should have been implemented before publication.] ix. the blank leaves replace leaves cut out. x. Both offices for william and the office for Cuthbert are crossed through or otherwise damaged, but not that for wilfrid. xi. on the direction line (perhaps a guide for the printer) of the first page of signatures is the abbreviation Ebo. xii. ‘william robinson 1686’ handwritten in several places, and numerous other handwritten additions.

144

appendix 2

xiii. lawley says ‘belonged to Mr. gordon, bequeathed by him to Dr. raine’ (lawley vol.i p.xvii), but see 1526.2.c below. xiv. on the leaf preceding the title-page and on the final page is the stamp 1 oC 59. the 1533 copy in the British library was purchased in 1859 (lawley vol.i p.xix), but lawley makes no such comment for this copy of 1526. lawley cites a long passage of handwritten material ‘on the flyleaf.’ the material is ‘Breviary according to the use of York, an extremely rare book. On the 9 June, 1534, Hen. viij. issued a proclamation commanding the pope’s name to be erased out of all prayers and Church Books; in compliance with which the then possessor of this Book has erased the word ‘papa’ throughout, as I have also observed in various MS Missals &c. And in Sep. 1538, he issued another proclamation for the abolition of counterfeit Saints; to comply with which the owner has crossed out various passages and also cut out 4 leaves containing the Festum S. Thome à Becket—1 leaf in the Translatio sancti Willelmi—and one leaf in the Festum S. Cuthberti.’ this description conforms exactly with C.35.b.4, confirming that it is indeed copy l. But that flyleaf was not filmed, although the edges of several flyleaves are visible at beginning and end of the book. the first flyleaf, facing the last printed page and thus filmed, has handwritten lessons for Christmas. b. ELB C.35.b.4 (Summer volume), minus kalendar. see below under 1526.4.d.viii (seen in situ, but not described). c. ELB C.35.a.15, no date (with the name raine) (seen in situ, but not described) (1533 in amiet). this book is described, from lawley, under 1533. 3. locations (not seen) a. ELB C.35.h.18 (Bohatta (1937)) b. EOB gough 59 (see 1517 & eccl.X p.262) (Bohatta (1937)). see 1526.4.c below. c. ECU syn.8.55.169 (summer temporale: bound with kalendar of sarum Breviary of 1524. see sayle.) 4. locations (unconfirmed: detailed information summarized from lawley) a. EYC (amiet & iCep: these must refer to the copies just below) b. EYC X.p.7 (Winter volume) this is lawley’s copy e. i. Title-page: as 1526.2.a.i ii. Opening: not given in lawley

the sources of the York office

145

iii. Register : mentioned, but not given in lawley iv. Colophon: as 1526.2.a.iv but has impressum for impressi, and decimaquinta for decimoquinto. v. Final text: none vi. Sponsor : for J. gaschet (title-page) vii. Size, etc.: 150 × 100 mm; 2 col., 35 lines; bound in brown calf with the York Minster library stamp. viii. Signatures (see 1526.2.a.viii): Temporale a–t8 (a:4 is wrongly signed g:4), ending with the vigil of easter • Kalendar 8 Psalter and Common of Saints a–o8 p4 • BVM.Visitation 8 (ending with a woodcut) • Sanctorale a–g8 ix. on the direction line of the first page of signatures is the abbreviation Ebo. x. on the flyleaf before the title-page is ‘Biblice Decani & Capituli ebor. Dono Dedit rokby scott Clicus, 1733.’ c. EYC X.p.25, EOB gough 59, and Cooke’s copy (see 1526.5.a) (Winter volumes): these are lawley’s copies B, k, and C, about which he says ‘the same description of that given of e will hold good’ (lawley vol.i p.xvii). d. EYC (shelfmark not given) (Summer volume). this is lawley’s r: said to be the summer volume of his eBkl and C described above i. Title-page: none ii. Opening: not given in lawley iii. Register: none: not mentioned by lawley iv. Colophon: none v. Final text: incomplete: see Signatures vi. Sponsor : not given in lawley vii. Size, etc.: 150 × 92 mm; bound like e with the York Minster library stamp. viii. Signatures: Temporale lacking • Kalendar not mentioned • Psalter lacking; Common of Saints lacking until the Common of several Confessors M–n8 o10 (lacking 1 folio?) • Sanctorale aa–vv8 ending with the office for edmund, archbishop of Canterbury (nov. 16); remainder lacking ix. the feast of the transfiguration and the holy name of Jesus are in the sanctorale, but not the visitation. ‘M. fothergill

146

appendix 2

has appended a note in Ms., “not in the Ms. Brev. ebor”’ (lawley vol.i p.xviii). 5. locations (not known) a. Bute (stC); rev. J. raine (but see 1526.2.c above); sherbrooke; rev. w.J. Blew (eccl.X); p.B. Davies Cooke, h. sherbrooke (lawley) 6. Bibliography a. (full description) b. (brief description) i. STC #15858 [HTv8WPXYDl] ii. Bohatta (1937) p.197 #2202 [HYDTIWPX8nvfslB] iii. ELB.1884 p.1004 [HTinPWY8lSN]: notes that there are 3 pts, presumably C.35.a.15 (1526) and the two volumes of C.35.b.4. Includes the letters G.L. in Gothic print.9 c. (notice only) i. Brunet vol.i p.1233 [rhWPXY12(or8)] ii. Graesse vol.i p.534 [rWPY12X] iii. Lowndes vol.i p.267 [rWPY12PX] iv. Lawley vol.ii p.xii [HYWPX8VcL] v. Sayle p.62 #6163 [HVPXWDY8: see 1524 (#6188) & 1555? (#6266)] vi. Eccl.X p.262 [Y12VWPXl] vii. Amiet p.246 #2202 [HYHlb] viii. ICEP vol.iii p.282 #942 [HTPXDv8bL] ix. Deschamps p.441–2 [rtPYWn] x. Quaritch Cat.386 #1182 [HTIZNWPYN: the notes referring to other printings are out of date] xi. Raine p.63 [HnZWPY] xii. Ecclesiologist p.26 [HWPXDN] d. (not seen) 9 heather robbins reports that either g.l. or B.l., in gothic type, are found in numerous but not all entries in the three volumes of elB.1884. the latter is much more frequent: 85 per cent vs 15 per cent. there is no obvious pattern as to how they relate to subject matter, secular, religious, or otherwise. the position within the entry differs, but is usually before the printer and date. there is no introduction to explain abbreviations, and only one page of preface, which states that the catalogue follows the rules of the general Catalogue of printed Books in the British Museum. since it seems unlikely that our knowledge will be much further advanced by seeking more evidence, we decided not to seek those rules, which must date from before 1884.

the sources of the York office

1530?

147

Breviary, 12o, summer, imperfect

1. preliminary notes a. the first mention of this book is in Eccl.X (1872), where it is said to be imperfect, and owned by rev. J. raine: • Eccl.X p.262 [Hy12Vl] b. under the heading ‘n. Brit. Museum C 35 a’ it is also mentioned in 1880 by lawley, vol.i pp.xix–xx, where he says ‘in the British library Catalogue the conjectural date of 1520 is assigned to it, and in Dr. henderson’s list of York service Books, that of 1530?; but, as stated above, it must be given to the year 1533.’ this list is not either of those in his edition. * 1533 (1526)

Breviary, 16o, 2 vols [Regnault, Paris, 22 Aug]

1. preliminary notes a. see 1530. b. reprint of 1526, but the two are different sizes 2. locations (seen) a. ELB C.35.a.15, no date, (Summer volume) (see 1526, amiet). this is surely lawley’s n, described by him under the shelfmark C 35 a [sic] (seen by hughes in situ, but not fully described: some information below is derived from lawley). i. Title-page: none ii. Opening: not known iii. Register: lawley says ‘in the Museum Catalogue it is thus described: “note. register a–t, 12. 8 unnumbered leaves, and a–p, aa–tt. parts 1 and 3 are without pagination. imperfect, wanting title-page, and all before sig. B, h 8, o 1 8, and all after sig. tt. o 2–7 are much mutilated.”’ iv. Colophon: not known v. Final text: see Signatures vi. Sponsor: not given vii. Size, etc.: 100 × 78 mm; 2 cols; 36 lines; bound in calf viii. Signatures: Temporale [a8 lacking] B–s8 t12 • Kalendar 8 folios, no signature or foliation • Psalter and Common of Saints a–n8 o8 [lacking o:1,8 and the remaining leaves torn across the bottom] p8 • Sanctorale aa–tt8 ending incomplete in all saints Day ix. earlier assigned the dates 1520 and 1530 (see 1530), but ‘must be given to the year 1533.’

148

appendix 2

3. locations (not seen: information taken from Bohatta (1937), and lawley) a. ELB C.35.a.15 (Winter volume). this is not lawley’s g. i. Title-page: ¶ Breviarium ad usum insigis [sic] Metropolitane ecclesie eboracensis: una cum pica diligentissime emendatum: in preclara parrhisiensi academia: in edibus videlicet francisci regnault impressum: ac expensis honesti viri ioannis gascheti: in predicta eboracensi Civitate commemorantis (compare 1526) ii. Opening: not known iii. Register: not known iv. Colophon: ¶ finit pars hyemalis tam de tempore quam de sanctis breviarii ad usum insignis ecclesie eboracensis parisiis impressi arte ac pervigili cura francisci regnault universitatis parisiensis librarii iurati / in vico sancti Jacobi e regione maturinorum sub signo elephantis commorantis. anno domini millesimo quingentesimo xxxiij, vicesima secunda die mensis augusti. (Compare the minor differences with that of 1526.) v. Final text: colophon vi. Sponsor : expensis regnault … et … gascheti (see colophon) vii. Size, etc.: as 1533.5.a.vii viii. Signatures: not known ix. on the direction line of the first page of signatures is the abbreviation Ebo. 4. locations (unconfirmed) 5. locations (not known) a. Dr Gott’s copy (described by lawley) (Winter volume). this is lawley’s g. the wording of its title-page differs from that of 1533.3.a (which is here derived from Bohatta). i. Title-page: ¶ Breviarium insignis ac metropolitane ecclesie eboracensis: una cum pica (quod vulgo dicitur) diligentissime emendatum: et in parisiorum academia expensis francisci regnault eiusdem universitatis bibliopole iurati : et honesti viri Joannis gascheti in predicta eboracensi civitate commorantis impressum (compare 1526) (1) Lawley follows this with ¶ pars hyemalis. venit parisiis francisco regnault sub insigni elephantis e regione Maturinorum, 1533 ii. Opening: not known

the sources of the York office

149

iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii.

Register : not known Colophon: as in 1533.3.a.iv Final text: colophon Sponsor : expensis regnault … et … gascheti (see colophon) Size, etc.: 100 × 78 mm; 2 cols; 36 lines; bound in calf. Signatures: Temporale a–v8 • Kalendar lacking • Psalter and Common of Saints a–p8 f.i–cxx • Sanctorale aa–hh4 [this should surely read aa–gg8 hh4] ending with wilfrid ix. on the title-page: ‘the autograph of “henricus Comes arundell” etc.’ (lawley vol.i p.xviii)10 6. Bibliography a. (full description) b. (brief description) i. STC #15859 [HTv16sWPXYDl] ii. Bohatta (1937) pp.197–8 #2203 [HYDTOWPX16nvfSlb] iii. ELB.1884 p.1004 [HToinPWY16lSN: notes that there are 3 pts, presumably C.35.a.15 and the two volumes of C.35.b.4 of 1526.] c. (notice only) i. Lawley vol.ii p.xii [HYWPX16Vcl] ii. Amiet p.246 #2204 [HYHb] iii. Deschamps p.441 [1526 reimprimé en 1533, en très-petit format] iv. Ecclesiologist p.26 [HWPYN] d. (not seen) i. Raine; Book Prices Current (1908) #4968 (i) (lawley vol.i p.xiii) * 1555 Breviary, 8o, 2 vols [printer unknown, Rouen] 1. preliminary notes a. the Cambridge summer volume ‘has the temporale replaced by that of [1526] and the kalendar by that of [the sarum Breviary of 1524]’ (stC) (see 1524 above)

10 the appearance of a York antiphonal at arundel Castle appears to be coincidental.

150

appendix 2

2. locations (seen) a. ELB C.35.g.20, dated 1555 (seen in situ) 3. locations (not seen) 4. locations (unconfirmed) a. ECU syn.8.55.168/9 (adams includes it) 5. locations (not known) a. H. Sherbrooke’s copy (lawley) (totum in two volumes). this is lawley’s s. i. Title-page: none in either volume ii. Opening: not given iii. Register: not given iv. Colophon: none in either volume v. Final text: the volumes are said to be complete vi. Sponsor: not given vii. Size, etc.: 136 × 90; winter: two sizes of type; 2 cols; 33 lines; summer: different type, 35 lines in temporale, 33 in the other sections viii. Signatures: Winter • Temporale with some signatures bound out of order aa– ee8 gg8 ff8 ll8 hh–rr8 • Kalendar lacking • Psalter a–k8 (ff.i–lxxx) Common of Saints aa–ff8 • Sanctorale a–h8 i4 Summer • Temporale aa–rr8 ss4 (nn:3,4 numbered mm:3,4). Before trinity sunday is a pica or pye of 94 pages. • Kalendar 8 folios (a sarum kalendar of 1524: lawley vol.i p.xx) • Psalter and Common of Saints as the winter volume • Sanctorale aa–ZZ8 and &8, the medieval abbreviation for con8, and the -us abbreviation8 (lawley says this is a seven, with its last leaf missing.) ix. the date 1524 on the outside of the volume is derived from the golden number in the kalendar, but since the kalendar is of sarum use and unlike York kalendars, it is not useful for dating. • the summer temporale is in different type, and ‘resembles greatly the edition of 1526.’

the sources of the York office

x.

151

lawley says ‘the collation of [this book] begins at col. 677.’ By this he means that, since the book became available only after his edition was well under way, the apparatus includes references to it only from column 677 (it is in fact column 675). 6. Bibliography a. (full description) b. (brief description) i. STC #15860 [Hnv8Wyln] c. (notice only) i. Lawley vol.ii p.xii [Hyw8Vcl] ii. Sayle p.62 #6266 [y(‘about 1555’)8] iii. Bohatta (1937) p.198 #2204 [Hy(‘ca.1555’)HW8nvlb] iv. Adams vol.i p.647 #958–9 [HtVSnf8Wybl] v. Ecclesiologist p.26 [HWDN] d. (not seen)

appendix 3 resources for early printed Books

this is a handlist for beginners to the field, rather than a list of works cited. the amount of description in these resources varies very considerably, from one-line notices to those that deal with the history of the book in question and those that give at least partial inventories. the precise information that may be found with respect to a particular date is presented in an abbreviated form in the Catalogue of printed York Breviaries. see ¶1020. items in which there are descriptions of or references to 1493 are marked with an asterisk (*). * aDaMs, herbert M. Catalogue of books printed on the continent of Europe, 1501–1600 in Cambridge libraries 2 vols (Cambridge: university press 1967) * aMes, Joseph Typographical Antiquities; an historical account of printing in England: with some memoirs of our ancient printers, and a register of the books printed by them, from the year MCCCCLXXI to the year MDC. With an appendix concerning printing in Scotland and Ireland to the same time. • Begun by ames, augmented by william herbert, and greatly enlarged by thomas frognall Dibdin. 4 vols. london volume 1: printed for w. Miller by w. savage, 1810 volume 2: printed for w. Miller by w. Bulmer, 1812 volume 3: printed for J. Murray by w. Bulmer, 1816 volume 4: printed for longman, hurst, rees, orme, and Brown by w. Bulmer, 1819 • Deschamps (see entry below) says that volume 3, #1437, of this publication contains a reference to the 1526 York Breviary and gachet, but no such reference is to be found.

resources for early printed Books

153

* aMiet, robert Missels et bréviaires imprimés : supplément aux catalogues de Weale et Bohatta : propres des saints (éditions princeps) (paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique 1990) • supplements Bohatta’s edition of weale, Bibliographia liturgica. Catalogus missalium ritus latini, ab anno MCCCLXXV impressorum (london: Quaritch 1928) and Bohatta’s Bibliographie der Breviere 1501–1850 (vienna: gilhofer and ranschburg 1911) • see Bohatta (Bibliographie der Breviere) and weale. BarwiCk, george f. and alfred pollard List of catalogues of English book sales, 1676–1900, now in the British Museum (london: British Museum 1915) * Bohatta, hanns Liturgische Bibliographie des XV. Jahrhunderts: mit Ausnahme der Missale und Livres d’heures (vienna: gilhofer and ranschburg 1911) • supplements weale, Bibliographia liturgica. Catalogus missalium ritus latini ab anno MCCCLXXV impressorum (1st edition) and the author’s Bibliographie der Livres d’heures des XV. und XVI. Jahrhunderts (vienna: gilhofer and ranschburg 1909) • see weale. * Bohatta, hanns Bibliographie der Breviere 1501–1850 (leipzig: k.w. hiersemann 1937; unrevised reprint 1963) * British MuseuM, DepartMent of printeD Books Catalogue of books in the Library of the British Museum printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and of books in English printed abroad, to the year 1640, 3 vols (london: trustees of the British Museum 1884) • this is the catalogue to which Bohatta (1911) refers. * British MuseuM, DepartMent of printeD Books Catalogue of books printed in the XVth century now in the British Museum, 13 parts (london: trustees of the British Museum 1908–2004) • pt.1 Xylographica and books printed with types at Mainz, Strassburg, Bamberg and Cologne pt.2 Germany: Eltvil – Trier pt.3 Germany: Leipzig – Pforzheim, German-speaking Switzerland and Austria-Hungary pt.4 Italy: Subiaco and Rome pt.5 Italy: Venice

154

• •

appendix 3

pt.6 Italy: Foligno, Ferrara, Florence, Milan, Bologna, Naples, Perugia Treviso pt.7 Italy: Genoa – Unassigned. Addenda pt.8 France, French-speaking Switzerland pt.9, fasc.1 Holland; pt.9, fasc.2 Belgium pt.10 Spain-Portugal pt.11 England pt.12 Italy Supplement pt.13 Hebraica each part is published in a separate volume. this is the catalogue to which gw refers.

* Brunet, Jacques Charles Manuel du libraire et de l’amateur de livres, contenant 1. Un nouveau dictionnaire bibliographique. 2. Une table en forme de catalogue raisonné, 5th edition, 6 vols (paris: firmin-Didot 1860–5) • fifth edition entirely recast and augmented by the author. • first edition published in 1809. * Coates, alan, et al. A catalogue of books printed in the fifteenth century now in the Bodleian Library 6 vols (oxford: university press 2005) * Copinger, walter arthur Supplement to Hain’s Repertorium Bibliographicum / Collections towards a new edition of that work: in two parts, 2 parts in 3 volumes (london: h. sotheran 1895–1910) • Contains nearly 7,000 corrections of and additions to the collations of works described or mentioned by hain in addition to a list with numerous collations and bibliographical particulars of nearly 6,000 volumes printed in the fifteenth century, not mentioned by hain. with index by konrad Burger. • see hain. • Correction/addition for #3834 says ‘see preface to York Breviary, surtees society.’ no additional York Breviaries are listed. Cust, arthur p. purey • see raine. Denis, Michael Annalium typographicorum v. cl. Michaelis Maittaire svpplementvm / adornauit Michael Denis 2 vols (vienna: Joseph kurzbek 1789) • supplement to Maittaire Annales typographici ab artis inventae origine ad annum MD

resources for early printed Books

• •

155

see Maittaire. no other York Breviaries listed here.

* DesChaMps, pierre Dictionnaire de géographie ancienne et moderne à l’usage du libraire et de l’amateur de livres (paris: Dorbon-ainé 1870) • sub-title: ‘Contenant: 1. les noms anciens, grecs et latins, de la décadence latine et de la renaissance, des principales divisions de l’europe, provinces, villes, bourgs, abbayes, etc., avec leur signification actuelle en langues vulgaires; 2. les recherches les plus étendues et les plus consciencieuses sur les origines de la typographie dans toutes les villes, bourgs, abbayes d’europe, jusqu’au XiXe siècle exclusivement; 3. un dictionnaire français-latin des noms de lieux, destiné à servir de table.’ • supplement to Brunet Manuel du libraire. • see Brunet. Digital faCsiMiles: see under eeBo. * Duff, e. gordon Fifteenth century English books: a bibliography of books and documents printed in England and of books for the English market printed abroad (london: Bibliographical society at oxford university press 1917) * eeBo (early english Books online) • eeBo is a digital version of four microfilm collections published by uMi from 1938 onwards (some of them still in the process of completion): early english Books i (stC 1475–1640, pollard and redgrave), early english Books ii (stC 1641–1700, wing), the thomason tracts, and the early english Books tract supplement. eeBo scanned the microfilms from uMi,1 but did not scan the iD cards for each book, inserting instead a bibliographic record called a citation for each item. the citation information is drawn from the four reference works listed under stC (Duff, Bosanquet, lindsay, and hoskins) in addition to the estC. the format of the citation is the same as that of the estC records. • eeBo is the product of proQuest, the successor to uMi, which is likewise based in ann arbor, Michigan. eeBo was begun in the late 1 the fact that the eeBo ‘pages’ do not identically reproduce the ‘frames’ of the microfilm makes this piece of information suspect: see the Comparative inventory, ¶906, signatures 9–12.

156

appendix 3

1990s and first became available to colleges and universities in 1998–9. * The Ecclesiologist: notes and queries on Christian antiquities no.1 (June 1888) no.2 (July 1888) no.3 (sept. 1888) (london: thomas weale 1888) • gw lists publisher as w.h. James weale in its abbreviations list, not thomas weale as on rlguC. • this series is not related to the periodical The Ecclesiologist, which ceased publication in 1868. The Ecclesiologist vol.10 no.76; new series vol.7 no. 40 (febr. 1850) 257–83 • this presents a list of printed service books of english uses. • this source is listed in Bohatta (1937/63), but the reference numbers do not match up. Bohatta also cites it as no.75. * estC (english short title Catalogue) • estC is a bibliographic database whose aim is to provide a bibliographic record for virtually every item printed in england or in any of its dependencies between 1473 and 1800, in any language. each record contains a description of the item, notes on the item, a list of libraries which have reported holding a copy of the item, and selected bibliographic references, including the stC number, in addition to the uMi reel number, if it has been filmed. the records are compiled in various ways. the descriptions and notes for a particular item may derive from an examination of the copy in early english Books microfilm series (eeBo), supplemented perhaps by reference works such as the second edition of the stC, or by an examination of a digital copy of the title-page and/or colophon of the work, or by a report from an owning institution, or by a direct physical examination of the work. • estC, which began in 1977, is a product of the joint efforts of the British library, the Center for Bibliographical studies and research, and the university of California at riverside, with the cooperation of the american antiquarian society and over 1,600 libraries around the world. it is mounted on the research libraries information network (rlin) which is operated by the research libraries group (rlg, a developer and operator of information resources), and on the British library’s automated information service, Blaise-line.

resources for early printed Books

•

157

note that the Incunabula Short Title Catalogue website uses the same acronym to refer to the ‘eighteenth-Century short title Catalogue’ of english books.

* frÈre, edouard Des livres de liturgie des Églises d’Angleterre imprimés à Rouen dans les XVe et XVIe siècles (rouen: a. le Brument 1867). not to be confused with walter howard frere. grÄsse, Jean george théodore Trésor de livres rares et précieux ou Nouveau dictionnaire bibliographique 2nd edition with supplemental volume: 8 vols (Milan: görlich 1950) • sub-title: ‘Contenant plus de cent mille articles de livres rares, curieux et recherchés, d’ouvrages de luxe, etc. avec les signes connus pour distinguer les éditions originales des contrefaçons qui en ont été faites, des notes sur la rareté et le mérite des livres cités et les prix que ces livres ont atteints dans les ventes les plus fameuses, et qu’ils conservent encore dans les magasins des bouquinistes les plus renommés de l’europe.’ • first edition: (Dresden: r. kuntze 1859–69) 7 vols gw: see koMMision. * hain, ludwig f.t. Repertorium bibliographicum, in quo libri omnes ab arte typographica inventa usque ad annum MD. typis expressi, ordine alphabetico vel simpliciter enumerantur vel adcuratius recensentur 2 parts in 4 volumes (stuttgart: J.g. Cotta 1826–38) • in 1891 a volume of supplemental indices was published by konrad Burger under the same title (leipzig: sumptibus ottonis harrassowitz). * hellinga, lotte, editor-in-chief Incunabula: the printing revolution in Europe, 1455–1500 (woodbridge, Ct: research publications international 1992–) • this is a microfiche series of incunabula collections based on the incunabula short title Catalogue (istC: see below). a group of incunabula are selected to represent a theme (ex., ‘liturgy’) and they are issued in microfiche form in one or more units. each unit is accompanied by a guide, which is a printed checklist detailing the microfiche header information and the number of fiches per item. separate printed volumes which introduce each collection and

158

appendix 3

reproduce the istC records for its contents have been projected for each collection, but have only been published for those up to unit 47 (and even then, apparently only intermittently). units 50 and 51 comprise the ‘liturgy’ collection: the accompanying printed volume has therefore not yet been issued. according to the online guide for the series, it is to be introduced by Dr Cristina Dondi, formerly lyell research fellow in Bibliography, lincoln College, oxford. iCep: see under Moreau. * istC (incunabula short title Catalogue) • the istC is an electronic database of incunabula that has been in development since 1980 at the British library. the project began with the keyboarding of frederick goff’s Incunabula in American libraries: a third census, and the holdings of other libraries were subsequently added in the same format. Major contributors apart from the British library include the Bayerische staatsbibliothek, the Biblioteca nazionale Centrale, the Bibliographical society of america, the koninklijke Bibliotheek, and the Bibliothèque royal albert ier. each istC record represents a single edition and provides the following information: title, imprint, format, locations of known copies, bibliographical references, and sometimes various notes on production. no descriptions of the items are offered, however. the istC is continuously being updated, aiming to eventually provide a record of all fifteenth-century printing. at present, approximately 90 per cent of known printed items have been registered. • it should be noted that the istC makes no reference whatsoever to the estC and the uMi microfilms, or to eeBo and its digital versions of the films. therefore, anyone consulting the istC would not be aware of the fact that it is possible to examine the printed books in a medium other than the rather dated microfiche. • the istC is mounted on Blaise-line in the uk, on rlin in the united states, and on pica in the netherlands. * koMMission fÜr Den gesaMtkatalog Der wiegenDruCke. gw: Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke 2nd edition, 10 volumes (stuttgart: a. hiersemann 1968–92) • the first edition consisted only of the first seven volumes [incomplete] (leipzig: karl w. hiersemann 1925–32). in 1968 the first

resources for early printed Books

•

159

seven volumes were re-issued, with corrections originally all found at the end of volume 7 now inserted at the end of each volume. the publication of volume 8 followed in 1978, volume 9 in 1991, and volume 10 in 1992. volume 5 (1932) deals with Breviaries.

* lawleY, stephen, ed. Breviarium ad usum insignis ecclesie Eboracensis, publications of the surtees society 2 volumes (71, 75) (Durham: andrews and Co.; london: whittaker and Co.; london: Bernard Quaritch; edinburgh: Blackwood and sons 1880, 1883) • edition of the York Breviary • the 1493 Bodleian book is the original text of the reprint, and a description of the copy is thus included. * lepreuX, georges Gallia typographica ou Répertoire biographique et chronologique de tous les imprimeurs de France depuis les origines de l’imprimerie jusqu’à la Révolution 5 volumes in 7 tomes (paris: h. Champion 1910–14) * lownDes, william thomas The bibliographer’s manual of English literature 2nd edition, 11 vols (see note below) (london: henry g. Bohn 1857) • sub-title: ‘Containing an account of rare, curious, and useful books, published in or relating to great Britain and ireland, from the invention of printing; with bibliographical and critical notices, collations of the rarer articles, and the prices at which they have been sold in the present century.’ • first edition: (london: william pickering 1834) • second edition revised, corrected and enlarged by henry Bohn. • there are two different numbering systems: each physical book is called a ‘part’ and is numbered from 1 to 10, with a separate appendix at the end with no number. also, two parts comprise a volume (‘subtitled’ .1 and .2), and so there are 5 volumes: again, the appendix is not assigned a volume number. * Maittaire, Michael Annales typographici ab artis inventae origine ad annum MD 5 volumes in 9 tomes: vols 1–3 (Den haag: isaac vaillant 1719–26) vol.4 (amsterdam: peter humbert 1733) vol.5 (london: gul. Darres and Cl. DuBosc 1741)

160

•

• •

appendix 3

volume 4 was originally published as a new edition of the first three volumes and therefore is labelled volume 1, but by the time volume 5 was published, it was decided that all the volumes should be continuous and so the numbering reverts. reprinted in 1965–67 with 2 supplemental volumes containing a reprint of Michael Denis’s Annalium typographicorum v. cl. Michaelis Maittaire svpplementvm (graz: akademische Druck- u. verlagsanstalt) see Denis.

MiCrofiChe: see under hellinga. MiCrofilM: see under uMi. * Moreau, Brigitte Inventaire chronologique des éditions parisiennes du XVIe  siècle (ICEP). after the manuscripts of philippe renouard. (paris: imprimerie municipale 1972–) • volume 3: 1521–1530 (f. paillart: abbéville 1985) * oates, John C.t. A catalogue of the fifteenth-century printed books in the University Library Cambridge (Cambridge: university press 1954) * panZer, georg wolfgang Annales typographici ab artis inventae origine ad annum MD; post Maittairii Denisii aliorumque doctissimorum virorum curas in ordinem redacti emendati et aucti 11 vols (nuremberg: J.e. Zeh 1793–1803) • Draws on Maittaire, Annales typographici ab artis inventae ad annum MD and Denis, Annalium typographicorum v. cl. Michaelis Maittaire svpplementvm/ adornauit Michael Denis. • see Denis and Maittaire. pollarD, alfred w. and g.r. reDgrave: see under stC. power, eugene Edition of one: the autobiography of Eugene B. Power (ann arbor, Mi: university Microfilms inc. 1990) • this is the only source of information on university Microfilms international. power was the founder. * proCtor, robert An index to the early printed books in the British Museum: from the invention of printing to the year 1500. With notes of those in the Bodleian Library 3 volumes, 2nd edition (london: holland press 1960) • first edition: (london: kegan paul-trench, trübner and Co. 1898–1906). no indication that the second edition is revised.

resources for early printed Books

161

QuaritCh • Bohatta (1937/63) refers to a Quaritch catalogue in the entry for the 1526 Breviary. raine, James A catalogue of the printed books in the Library of the Dean and Chapter of York (York: John sampson; london: simpkin, Marshall, hamilton, kent and Co. 1896) • Bohatta (1937/63) gives Cust as the author, but this is an error. Cust was the Dean of York at the time of publication and he wrote the foreword, but raine is the author. • this is a list of most of the printed books in the York Minster library, given in alphabetical order. there is a fairly long preface that describes the history of the library’s collections and acquisitions; there are no indices. rlg: see under estC. rlguC is the union Catalogue of the research libraries group, now superseded by worldCat. rlin: see under estC. * sanDer, Max Le livre à figures italien depuis 1467 jusqu’à 1530. Essai de sa bibliographie et de son histoire (Milan: ulrico hoepli 1969) * saYle, Charles edward Early English printed books in the University Library, Cambridge, 1475 to 1640, 4 vols (Cambridge: university press 1900–1907) shepparD, leslie alfred Catalogue of fifteenth-century books in the Bodleian Library (unpublished Ms 1954–71) * stC (alfred w. pollard and g.r. redgrave, A short-title catalogue of books printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland and of English books printed abroad, 1475–1640) • first edition: (london: the Bibliographical society 1926) 1 volume • this is a catalogue of abridged descriptions of all english books printed before December 31, 1640, and of which copies were located either at the British Museum, the Bodleian library, the Cambridge university library, and the henry e. huntington library, California. these are supplemented by additions from nearly 150 other collections. the purpose of the catalogue is to inform scholars where copies can most conveniently be consulted.

162

•

•

•

•

appendix 3

Copies found in the British Museum, the Bodleian library, and the Cambridge university library are therefore mentioned first, and only when a copy is not to be found in any of these three is another library mentioned. Compilation of the catalogue revealed in many instances that what were initially believed to be single works were actually variant publications. the editors did not make any concerted effort to sort these out and therefore caution the reader about this problem (p.vii). indeed, when more than one copy of a particular book is listed, it may deserve a separate entry. Bibliographic references are given to four works: gordon Duff, English fifteenth century books: a bibliography of books and documents printed in England and of books for the English market printed abroad (london: Bibliographical society at oxford university press 1917) eustace f. Bosanquet English printed almanacs and prognostications: a bibliographical history to the year 1600 (london: Bibliographical society 1928) James ludovic lindsay, earl of Crawford A bibliography of Royal Proclamations of the Tudor and Stuart sovereigns and of others published under authority, 1485–1714 edited by robert steele (oxford: Clarendon press 1910) edgar hoskins Horae Beatae Mariae Virginis; or, Sarum and York Primers, with kindred books, and Primers of the reformed Roman use (london, new York: longmans and green 1901) second edition, revised and enlarged. Begun by w.a. Jackson and f.s. ferguson; completed by katharine f. pantzer, 3 vols (london: the Bibliographical society 1976–91) vol.1 1968, vol.2 1976, vol.3 1991. work began on this revised and enlarged edition as soon as the original was published. the function is still to give limited identification of a particular item and its location. additional copies of works are now listed in the entries, which were discovered through the correspondence of the stC team with the libraries with holdings of english books. however, the editors explain that they still have not been able to undertake an examination of all the copies of a particular item, and thus acknowledge that different dates and prints are undoubtedly present among the so-called ‘copies’ (p.xxxv). therefore the problem in the original edition persists. the bibliographical list of reference works is more ample, but there has been no discernible attempt to incorporate the references into the entries. the ‘liturgies- latin rite’ section, for example,

resources for early printed Books

•

163

contains essentially only the old references to Duff and hoskins despite the inclusion of works such as Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke in the bibliographical list of reference works. volume 3 contains indices, appendices, and addenda and corrigenda to volumes 1 and 2.

* thoresBY, ralph Ducatus Leodiensis (1715). this book is available on microform (estC reel 5295, no.5) and in an online version in Eighteenth century collections online, provided by the gale group (subscription required): http://galenet.galegroup.com/eCCo (document Cw104331173). * uMi (university Microfilms international) • university Microfilms international, based in ann arbor, Michigan, is the largest commercially available microform collection of literary, journalistic, and scholarly works. it was founded in 1938 by eugene power, whose first project was Early English books, an ongoing microfilm edition of the printed works listed in the Short-title catalogue i (pollard and redgrave) and Short-title catalogue ii (1641– 1700) (wing). the only available information concerning this project comes from power’s autobiography, Edition of one: the autobiography of Eugene B. Power (ann arbor: uMi 1990). power was a pioneer in microfilming; he fashioned the second microfilm book-camera in existence. power installed his camera at the British Museum to have stC (1st edition) holdings filmed. holdings from the Bodleian library and Cambridge university library were also sent to the British Museum to be filmed. power then left the filming in the hands of a photographer there and returned to ann arbor, where he had the negatives sent. when the flow of negatives stopped because of the second world war, power travelled to american libraries in order to film their stC holdings. no indication is given as to how a particular copy of a book was chosen when more than one copy was available; it may be that the most complete copy was selected based on the information provided in the stC. each microfilmed book is introduced by an iD card which notes the title, author, date, library, library reference number, order number, and stC number. the copy used can thus be identified by the library and library reference number. * weale, w.h. James Bibliographia liturgica. Catalogus missalium ritus latini, ab anno M.CCCC.LXXV impressorum, 2nd edition, revised iterum edidit Hanns Bohatta (london: Quaritch 1928)

164

• •

appendix 3

first edition: (london: Quaritch 1886) entered because amiet supplements it; no Breviaries contained in it.

wing, Donald, editor of the second volume of stC, 1st edition, for later printed books.

notes

Chapter 3: Cataloguing Discrepancies 1 alfred w. pollard and g.r. redgrave A short-title catalogue of books printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland and of English books printed abroad 1475–1640 2nd ed revised and expanded by katharine f. pantzer (london: the Bibliographical society 1976–1991) 2 stephen willoughby lawley Breviarium ad usum insignis ecclesie Eboracensis 2 vols surtees society 71, 75 (Durham: andrews and Co. 1880, 1883) 3 John feather A history of British publishing 2nd ed (london: routledge 2006) 19; stacey gee ‘the coming of print to York’ in The mighty engine: the printing press and its impact eds peter isaac and Barry Mckay (winchester: st paul’s Bibliographies 2000) 79–88 passim 4 feather 20 5 gee 80; e. gordon Duff ‘the printers, stationers and bookbinders of York up to 1600’ Transactions of the Bibliographical Society 5 (1899) 89–90 6 william k. sessions Les deux Pierres: Rouen, Edinburgh, York (York: sessions 1982) 24, 48–54 including black and white facsimiles 7 on p.3 of leaves surviving in emmanuel College, Cambridge, 4.4.21 (stC 15861) 8 gee 81 9 Colin Clair A history of printing in Britain (london: Cassell 1965) 55 10 sessions 25, 35, 41 11 Cited in translation by sessions 38 12 owain tudor edwards ‘how many sarum antiphonals were there in england and wales in the middle of the sixteenth century?’ Revue bénédictine 99 (1989) 178 13 lawley vii. see also elizabeth armstrong ‘english purchases of printed books from the continent 1465–1526’ English Historical Review 94 (1979); robert Davies A memoir of the York press (York: k. spelman 1868)

166

notes to pages 10–19

14 e. gordon Duff A century of the English book trade: short notices of all printers, stationers, book-binders … 1457–1577 (london: the Bibliographical society 1905) 52; sessions 25; gee 80 15 gee 80 Chapter 4: Describing the Breviary and Its Cataloguers 1 lawley Breviarium … 2 ibid. i, xii 3 see the microfiche reproduction online at microformguides.gale.com/ data/download/3237000a.pdf. 4 Duff A century … 71 5 ibid. 9 and 42 6 the concept of an ‘ideal copy’ is described in eliot and owens 46: it is derived from study of all (or at least most) of the extant copies and is ‘an assessment of the physical details of the book and their exact relationship to the state in which the book was planned to appear at the time of its initial publication.’ 7 we argue this point of view in ‘the ideal copy: fallacies in the cataloguing of liturgical books’ Notes and Queries 56 (2009) 490–6. 8 i thank the librarian, alistair Macgregor, for so promptly sending me digital photographs, and the information about the location of the leaves. 9 see ¶1017, where we note potential confusion between 1 and i. indeed, the authors of the present volume made such an error in this very shelfmark. 10 Duff ‘the printers, stationers, and bookbinders of York up to 1600’ 88 11 lawley i, x–xi 12 ibid. i, xi–xxi 13 ibid. i, xiv 14 ibid. 15 i thank estelle Joubert for confirming this point in the Bodleian library. 16 andrew hughes Medieval manuscripts for mass and office: a guide to their organization and terminology (toronto: university of toronto press 1986) ¶889–97 17 ibid. ¶895. see also hughes and salisbury ‘the ideal copy’ 18 ibid. ¶105, figures 1.1 and 1.2 19 see hughes’s article ‘Defacing Becket: damaged books for the office’ in Hortus troporum: Florilegium in honorem Gunillae Iversen eds alexander andrée and erika kihlman, studia latina stockholmiensia 54 (stockholm: stockholm university 2008) 162–75.

notes to pages 19–35

167

20 kay Brainerd slocum Liturgies in honour of Thomas Becket (toronto: university of toronto press 2004) monastic office 167–208; the secular sarum office 209–222; York 226–233; Comparative tables sarum/York 152–4; translation office 305–11. 21 sherry l. reames ‘reconstructing and interpreting a thirteenth-century office for the translation of thomas Becket’ Speculum 80 (2005) 118–70 22 see andrew hughes Late medieval liturgical offices: resources for electronic research (sources and chants) [lMlo]. subsidia Medievalia 24 (toronto: pontifical institute for Mediaeval studies 1994) ¶320–8. 23 lawley i, xii–xiii 24 edward Maunde thompson, and others, eds Facsimiles of ancient manuscripts in new paleographical society (london 1903–30) plate 147 25 ibid.; richard sharpe ‘accession, classification, location: shelfmarks in medieval libraries’ Scriptorium 50 (1996) 279–87 26 email correspondence 27 information summarized from p.e. kell ‘thoresby, ralph (1658–1725)’ Oxford dictionary of national biography (oxford university press, september 2004); online ed, october 2006. http://www.oxforddnb.com.myaccess. library.utoronto.ca/view/article/27334 (accessed 9 september 2008). 28 Ducatus Leodiensis (1715) 546. lawley i, xii, note 2, also says that Maittaire refers to this notice in Annales typographici vol.i (alias vol.iv) 568. 29 lawley i, xii 30 g.f. Barwick and alfred pollard List of catalogues of English book sales, 1676–1900 (london 1915) 70 31 James raine A catalogue of the printed books in the library of the Dean and Chapter of York (1896) xviii 32 ibid. xvi 33 Barwick and pollard 83 34 raine A catalogue xviii 35 ibid. xviii 36 ibid. 63 37 alan Coates A catalogue of books printed in the fifteenth century now in the Bodleian Library vol.i (oxford: oxford university press 2005) 677 38 Barwick and pollard 92 39 email correspondence 40 lawley i, x and xiv; Coates 677 41 email correspondence 42 lawley i, xiv 43 philip gaskell A new introduction to bibliography (oxford: Clarendon press 1972) 78–109

168

notes to pages 40–56

44 ibid. 51–3 45 Gez. Bl. 285–300 fehlen in der erhaltenen Ex. Dies scheint lediglich auf einer Fehldisposition in der Blattzählung zu beruhen. [col. 291] in Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke Band i (stuttgart: anton hiersemann / h.p. kraus 1968) 46 Chad: 1515 printing (stC 15811; 1528 stC 15822a; 1533 stC 15832) etheldred: 1544 printing (stC 15835) ethelbert: 1505 printing (hereford: stC 15811) 47 gaskell 116; also hughes and salisbury ‘the ideal copy’ 48 stC 15858 and 15860 49 stC 15833 and 15840 50 elB C35.b.7 f.40 and elB C35.b.9 f.39 respectively 51 Mari agata ‘stop-press variants in the gutenberg Bible: the first report of the collation’ The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 97 (2003) 159, illus. 16. 52 gaskell 44 53 stC 15836 and 15847 54 sessions 19 translating from georges lepreux Gallia typographica vol.3 (paris: h. Champion 1912) 388 55 gaskell 78 56 ibid. 49–51 57 Duff ‘the printers’ 106 58 gaskell 12–16 and following pages; his bibliography of material relating to typefaces is on pp.396–7 59 Most of the following narrative was prepared by heather robbins. 60 robert proctor An index to the early printed books in the British Museum: from the invention of printing to the year 1500 with notes of those in the Bodleian Library (london: kegan paul, trench, trübner 1898) 341 61 ibid. 62 hughes Medieval manuscripts ¶874 Chapter 5: The Liturgical Context 1 knud ottosen The responsories and versicles of the Latin Office for the Dead (aarhus university press ca 1993); Dom rené-Jean hesbert Corpus antiphonalium officii (Cao) 6 vols. rerum ecclesiasticarum Documenta ser. Major fontes (rome 1979) 2 hughes Medieval manuscripts ¶112 3 hughes lMlo Sources and chants passim 4 richard pfaff New liturgical feasts in later medieval England (oxford university press 1970) 49

notes to pages 56–65

169

5 aberdeen university library ms 25, ff.259v and 260; facsimiles are available on the university’s website abdn.ac.uk/diss/historic/collects/bps, where the siglum is aul (in lMlo it would be tau). M.r. James A catalogue of the manuscripts in the University Library, Aberdeen (Cambridge 1932) 25–35 6 pfaff 13, 29–30, 77 7 ibid. 47 8 ibid. 73–5 9 gee 81; sessions 48 10 pfaff 54 11 lawley ii, ix 12 ibid. i, xvi 13 pfaff 74 14 hughes Medieval manuscripts ¶105, figures 1.1 and 1.2 15 andrew hughes ‘Chants in the rhymed office of st thomas of Canterbury’ Early Music 16 (1988) 185–202; slocum 152–4 16 andrew hughes ‘Modal order and disorder in the rhymed office’ Musica Disciplina 37 (1983) 29–52 17 hesbert CAO 18 reames ‘reconstructing’ 131 19 Passio 1: patrologia latina vol.190, cols 0317C–0324a; James Craigie robertson and J.B. sheppard Materials for the history of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. rerum Britannicarum Medii aevi scriptores. rolls series vol.67.4 (london: longman 1875–85) 186–95; reames ‘versions of individual lessons found in sarum Breviaries’ unpubl. ms passim; ibid. ‘the remaking of a saint: stephen langton and the liturgical office for Becket’s translation’ Hagiographica: Rivista di Agiografia e Biografia (Journal of Hagiography and Biography) 7 (2000) 17–33; Bibliographica Hagiographica Latina 8209; J.a. giles Vita S. Thoma Cant. archiep. et mart. (london 1846) vol.ii 137–45 20 slocum Liturgies 160 21 reames ‘the remaking’ 19; raymonde foreville Le jubilé de St Thomas Becket du XIIIe au XV siècle 1220–1470 (paris: s.e.v.p.e.n 1958); francis procter and Christopher wordsworth Breviarium ad usum insignis ecclesiae Sarum vol.iii (Cambridge university press 1886) cols 445–52; slocum 305–11; robertson 426–30: nothing really relevant to the lessons. 22 pfaff 6 23 Duff ‘the printers’ 90 24 gaskell 112, 343–52 25 andrew hughes ‘the scribe and the late medieval liturgical manuscript: page layout and order of work’ in The Centre and its compass: studies in

170

26 27

28 29 30 31 32

notes to pages 65–75 medieval literature in honor of Professor John Leyerle 151–224 (kalamazoo: western Michigan university 1993) passim sessions 46–9. the document is given on 55–6. ernst philip goldschmidt Medieval texts and their first appearance in print 2nd ed (Meisenheim: hain 1965): a reprint of the 1943 edition, which had been printed for the Bibliographical society at the university press, oxford. hughes ‘the scribe’ 161 sessions 38 gaskell 55 ibid. 195 agata ‘stop-press variants’ 140

Chapter 6: The Manuscripts and Prints 1 neil ripley ker and a.J. piper Medieval manuscripts in British libraries 5 vols (oxford: Clarendon press 1969, 1977, 1983, 1992, 2002) vol.iv 815 2 ibid. 820 3 Duff ‘the printers’ 88–9 4 hughes lMlo Sources and Chants ¶310–15 5 arthur de Boulay hill ‘the wollaton antiphonal’ pamphlet associated with the manuscript itself. unfortunately, many of the dates in this piece are inaccurate, but these two seem reasonable. 6 i should like to thank Dr Dorothy Johnston, keeper of the Manuscripts and special Collections at nottingham university, for her help with this book. 7 reported by de Boulay hill 5 8 see andrew hughes ‘Making something out of nothing’ in The Study of Medieval Manuscripts of England: Festschrift in Honor of Richard W. Pfaff, eds george Brown and linda voigts (turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming). 9 ibid. see also hughes ‘Defacing Becket.’ 10 ker Medieval manuscripts 814 and 816 11 andrew hughes Lambeth Palace, Sion College MS. L1: the Noted Breviary of York (olim Sion College ms Arc.L.40.2/L.1). facsimile. 3 vols. publications of Mediaeval Musical Manuscripts 25/1–3 ed. Bryan gillingham (ottawa: institute of Medieval Music 2000–1). an index volume and introduction are in preparation. 12 unpublished research by hughes: the evidence to be published in the forthcoming volume of the facsimile (previous footnote). the principal sources of evidence were the Dictionary of National Biography and The Victoria County Histories.

notes to pages 79–97

171

Chapter 7: Modern Technology 1 stC 15815; uMi film 59:10 2 eugene B. power Edition of one: the autobiography of Eugene B. Power (ann arbor: university Microfilms 1990) 30 3 see hellinga in appendix 3. Chapter 8: Recommendations and Conclusions 1 a more comprehensive set of recommendations for cataloguing liturgical books is in hughes, lMlo Sources and chants chapter 3. 2 lMlo Sources and chants ¶521–5 3 lMlo Texts ¶316–28 4 stC (2nd ed) 69 5 we thank phil lapsansky, Chief of reference at the philadelphia library Company, for checking this information. 6 these final paragraphs are based on ideas provided by salisbury.

This page intentionally left blank

general Bibliography

agata, Mari ‘stop-press variants in the gutenberg Bible: the first report of the collation’ The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 97 (2003) 139–65 armstrong, elizabeth ‘english purchases of printed books from the continent, 1465–1526’ English Historical Review 94:371 (1979) 268–90 Clair, Colin A history of printing in Britain (london: Cassell 1965) Colker, Marvin l. Trinity College Library, Dublin: descriptive catalogue of the Medieval and Renaissance Latin manuscripts 2 vols (aldershot: scolar press 1991) Davies, robert A memoir of the York press (York: k. spelman 1868) De ricci, seymour Census of medieval and renaissance manuscripts in the United States and Canada 2 vols and supplement, eds C.u. faye and w.h. Bond (new York: Bibliographical society of america 1962) Droste, Diane l. The musical notation and transmission of the music of the Sarum use, 1225–1500 (phD diss.: university of toronto 1983) Duff, edward gordon Early printed books (london: kegan paul, trench, trubner and Co. ltd. 1893) – ‘the printers, stationers and bookbinders of York up to 1600’ Transactions of the Bibliographical Society (Proceedings) 5 (1899) 87–107 – A century of the English book trade: Short notices of all printers, stationers, bookbinders … 1457–1557 (london: the Bibliographical society 1905) – Fifteenth-century English books illustrated Monographs 18 (oxford: the Bibliographical society 1917) edwards, owain tudor ‘how many sarum antiphonals were there in england and wales in the middle of the sixteenth century?’ Revue Bénédictine 99 (1989) 155–80 eliot, simon, and w.r. owens A handbook to literary research (london: routledge, 1998) feather, John A history of British publishing (london: routledge 1988; repr. with corrections 1991; 2nd edition 2006)

174

general Bibliography

fenlon, iain Cambridge music manuscripts, 900–1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge university press 1982) foreville, raymonde Le jubilé de St. Thomas Becket du XIIIe au XVe siècle, 1220– 1470 (paris: s.e.v.p.e.n. 1958 [1959?]) frère, edouard Les livres de liturgie des églises d’Angleterre (Salisbury, York, Hereford) imprimés à Rouen dans les 15e et 16e siècles (rouen: privately printed; 125 copies 1867) frere, walter howard Bibliotheca musico-liturgica (london: plainsong and Medieval Music society / B. Quaritch 1901–32) gaskell, philip A new introduction to bibliography (oxford: Clarendon press 1972) gee, stacey ‘the coming of print to York’ in The mighty engine: the printing press and its impact c 1490–1550 eds peter isaac and Barry Mckay (winchester: st paul’s Bibliographies 2000) 79–88 giles, John allen Vita S. Thoma Cant. archiep. et mart. 2 vols (london 1846) hesbert, Dom rené-Jean Corpus antiphonalium officii (Cao) 6 vols, rerum ecclesiasticarum Documenta; ser. major, fontes 7–12 (rome 1963, 1965, 1968, 1970, 1975, 1979) hughes, andrew ‘Chants in the rhymed office of st thomas of Canterbury’ Early Music 16 (1988) 185–202 – ‘Defacing Becket: damaged books for the office’ in Hortus troporum: Florilegium in honorem Gunillae Iversen, eds alexander andrée and erika kihlman, acta universitatis stockholmiensis 54 (universitas regia stockholmiensis: stockholm 2009) 162–75 – Lambeth Palace, Sion College MS. L1: the Noted Breviary of York (olim Sion College ms Arc.L.40.2/L.1) facsimile, 3 vols, publications of Mediaeval Musical Manuscripts 25/1–3 ed. Bryan gillingham (ottawa: institute of Medieval Music 2000–1) – Late medieval liturgical offices: resources for electronic research: texts and … Sources and chants (lMlo) subsidia Medievalia 23 and 24 (toronto: pontifical institute for Mediaeval studies 1994, 1996) – Medieval manuscripts for mass and office: a guide to their organization and terminology (toronto: university of toronto press rev. repr. 1986) – ‘Modal order and disorder in the rhymed office’ Musica Disciplina 37 (1983) 29–52 – ‘the scribe and the late medieval liturgical manuscript: page layout and order of work’ in The Centre and its compass: studies in medieval literature in honor of Professor John Leyerle (kalamazoo: western Michigan university 1993) 151–224 hughes, andrew, and Matthew salisbury ‘the ideal copy: fallacies in the cataloguing of liturgical books’ Notes and Queries 56 (2009) 490–6

general Bibliography

175

huglo, Michel Les tonaires: inventaire, analyse, comparaison, publications de la société française de Musicologie, 3 sér. 2 (paris: société française de musicologie 1971) James, M.r. A catalogue of the manuscripts in the University Library, Aberdeen (Cambridge 1932). facsimiles are available on the university’s website abdn .ac.uk/diss/historic/collects/bps. Jennet, seán The making of books (london: faber 1951; 4th edition 1967) ker, neil ripley, and a.J. piper Medieval manuscripts in British libraries 5 vols (oxford: Clarendon press 1969, 1977, 1983, 1992, 2002) – Medieval libraries of Great Britain 2nd suppl. ed. andrew g. watson, royal historical society guides and handbooks 15 (london: offices of the royal historical society 1987) lawley, stephen willoughby Breviarium ad Usum insignis ecclesie Eboracensis (York Breviary) 2 vols, surtees society 71, 75 (Durham: andrews and Co. 1880, 1883 (for 1879, 1882)) lepreux, georges Gallia typographica ou répertoire biographique et chronologique de tous les imprimeurs de France, depuis les origines de l’imprimerie jusqu’à la révolution (paris: h. Champion 1912) Mckerrow, ronald B. Introduction to bibliography for literary students (oxford 1927) Mclachlan, laurentia, and John B.l. tolhurst The ordinal and customary of the Abbey of Saint Mary, York henry Bradshaw society 73 (london: henry Bradshaw society 1963) Migne, J.-p., ed. Patrologia Latina: the full text database, online edition. (pld. chadwyck.com) 217 vols (paris 1844–55) pächt, otto, and J.J.g. alexander Illuminated manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford vol 3: British, irish, and icelandic schools (london: Clarendon press 1966, 1970, 1973) pfaff, richard w. New liturgical feasts in later medieval England (oxford: university press 1970) pollard, alfred w., and g.r. redgrave eds A short-title catalogue of books printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland and of English books printed abroad 1475–1640 (london: Bibliographical society 1926; 2nd ed 1986) power, eugene B. Edition of one: the autobiography of Eugene B. Power (ann arbor: university Microfilms international 1990) procter, francis, and Christopher wordsworth Breviarium ad usum insignis ecclesiae Sarum 3 vols (Cambridge: university press 1879, 1882, 1886) proctor, robert An index to the early printed books in the British Museum: from the invention of printing to the year 1500. With notes of those in the Bodleian Library (london: kegan paul, trench, trubner and Co. 1898) raine, James A catalogue of the printed books in the Library of the Dean and Chapter of York (York 1896)

176

general Bibliography

– The historians of the church of York and its archbishops rerum Britannicarum Medii aevi scriptores. rolls series 71, 3 vols (london: longman 1879–1984) reames, sherry l. ‘liturgical offices for the cult of st thomas Becket’ Ch. 26 in Medieval hagiography: an anthology ed. thomas head (new York, london: garland 2000) 561–93 – ‘the remaking of a saint: stephen langton and the liturgical office for Becket’s translation’ Hagiographica: Rivista Di Agiografia e Biografia (Journal of Hagiography and Biography) 7 (2000) 17–33 – ‘reconstructing and interpreting a thirteenth-century office for the translation of thomas Becket’ Speculum 80 (2005) 118–70 – ‘versions of individual lessons found in sarum Breviaries’ (unpublished ms) robertson, James Craigie, and J.B. shepard eds Materials for the history of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury 7 vols. rerum Britannicarum Medii aevi scriptores. rolls series 67 (london: longman 1875–85) salisbury, Matthew Cheung The use of York: characteristics of the medieval liturgical Office in York Borthwick papers 113 (Borthwick institute, university of York, 2008) sessions, william k. Les deux Pierres: Rouen, Edinburgh, York (York: privately printed by sessions 1982) slocum, kay Brainerd Liturgies in honour of Thomas Becket (toronto: university of toronto press 2004) staunton, Michael The lives of Thomas Becket (Manchester: Manchester university press 2001) van Dijk, stephen J.p. Handlist of the Latin liturgical manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford (oxford: typescript 1957)

index

the inventories are not indexed. References elsewhere are to paragraph numbers (¶ not shown here) and are in roman type, or to plates (pl.) or occasionally to chapters (Ch.), not to pages. only a single occurrence within each paragraph is recorded. within ¶1023 a further discrimination by date appears, as described below. shelfmarks are concatenated with a period so that their elements are kept together. persons listed by last names are distinguished with a first name, where that is easily accessible. the Pierres however, the subject of sessions’s monograph, are also listed under that name. persons of previous generations are given a qualification such as (bibliographer), useful here, but often a severe slight to their other accomplishments. as far as possible, the entries are arranged thus: (1) main headwords are flush left, sometimes qualified by clarifying comments to resolve ambiguity; (2) the first subheading is indented with a dash and followed by a colon; (3) second subheadings are normally run on in bold type with no punctuation. for clarity, a few are broken into paragraphs; (4) entries within these subheadings are in italics. each reference ends with a comma if followed by further material. headword (comment): references – subheading 1: references, subheading 2 references, subheading 3 references, subheading 3 references, subheading 2 references … and if extensive, subheading 2 begins a new paragraph. subheading 2 references, subheading 3 references. where a level heading involves shelfmarks, potentially confused with reference numbers, the shelfmark is in italics. the index is a list of words, many gathered within general concepts, and names, incipits, and titles, the last two of which are in italics. where a word is

178

index

ambiguous and its place in the index depends on its context, as for example with translation and translation (feast and office) or trinity (feast and College), we have made every effort to be precise. if the immediate context is not entirely clear, in the interest of efficiency and practicality we have tended to be overly inclusive. sources: printed Books (¶1023) references to the appendix on Printed Books are formatted thus: 1023.1533, where the first number is the ‘paragraph’ and the second the date of the early printed Breviary within that paragraph. suffixes to such references are to the sections and subsections within the date: 1023.1555.2.c. in many cases, these suffixes do not appear. to be brief, references here follow the principle stated above: that only a single reference within a paragraph (or here, a date) is recorded in the index. in the appendix on early printed Breviaries that reference may not be the first, and readers should examine the whole entry within the date. the next paragraph gives more details of this procedure. each of the early printed resources is formatted within ¶1023 in the same way, described generally in ¶1015 and specifically in ¶1016. some information in this part of app. 2 – in particular the list of sources in section 2 (and where necessary sections 3–5) and the bibliography within each date in section 6 – is no more than a library shelfmark (sections 2–5) or the briefest of references to a published book (section 6). in these cases, where the indexed term sought is clearly either an early printed book identified by its location in a library or a more recent book identified by its author, the section number does not appear after the paragraph and date. other information about these items, however, may also appear elsewhere in the entry, but is recorded only in exceptional cases. thus, where the index entry has only the paragraph and date (1023.1493), readers should examine the whole entry within the date.

index aberdeen university: 502 acts of uniformity: 616 adams, herbert M.: 615, 1023.1507, 1023.1555 Adsunt thome: 508 adventus: 422, 450 aesthetics: 805 agata, Mari: 448, 515, 802 alphabets: 453 altars: 311 ambiguity: 401–2, 413, 1001 ames, Joseph: 410, 703 ampersands: 511 anglicane: 415, 422, 424, 1023.1493, 1023.1507 antiphon: 412, 509–10, 512, 1005, 1007, 1023.1507 antiphonal: 308, 311, 501, 510, 602, 606, 1002, 1004–8, 1013, Wollaton 501, 503, 604, 608–9, York 305 antiquarian: 415, booksellers see Maggs, Quaritch, traylen archbishop: Canterbury 1023.1526.2. a.viii, 309, 509, 1007, York 413, 415, 501, 503, 607, 1007 armorials: 609 arundel (everingham): see sources, 1006 arundell, count of: 1023.1533 ashby de la Zouch: 402, 413, 416, 455 Barrevelt: 401 Bate Collection: 402–4, 433, 438, 455, 1023.1493 Bate copy: see sources, printed, loughborough Beatus igitur : 512 Benedict of peterborough: 507 benedictions: 1023.1507 Beverley, parish of st nicholas: 501, 608

179

bibliographers: 304, of 1493: see 1023.1493.6 Biblioteca Musico-liturgica: see frere bifolia, bifolium: 405–6, 408, 426, 431, 435–7, 443, 502 binding: 403–5, 414, 426–9, 455, 709, 802, 1013, 1019 bishop(s): see individual names 501 Blackwood: 312 bleedthrough: 701–3, 707 Blew, rev. w.J.: 1023.1507, 1023.1526 Bonhomme: 1023.1524 Book-prices Current: 1014, 1023.1524 bookseller: 1012, 1014 Boursette: 448 BpC: see Book-prices Breviary: 301, 305, 308, 311, 409, 411, 414–16, 420, 422, 424, 431, 446–8, 502, 505, 509–10, 514–15, 602, 606, 612 (noted Breviary), 616, 1002–3, 1005–13, 1023 in general Britain, British: 308, 411, 507, 510, 602, 1002, liturgical books 412, Museum 703, 1017, 1023.1526, printing (history of) 309, 455 British Topography (richard gough): 416 Brunet, Jacques (bibliographer): 438, 1023.1493, 1023.1526 Burnet psalter (university of aberdeen): 502 Bute, Marquess of: 1023.1526 Byrckman (sponsor): 1023.1524. (kerver) Cambridge: 313, 402, 408, 614–15, 703, 1002, 1005, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1524.(kerver), 1023.1555, University Library: 605,

180

index

608, 1002, 1005, 1020, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1524.(kerver), 1023.1526, 1023.1555 canonized: 507 (Becket), 610 Canterbury, Cantuariensis: 309, 503, 509, 1007, 1009, 1023.1526, archbishop(s) 309, 503, 509, 804, 1023.1526, Convocation of 1480: 503, new feasts of 1487: 503, stationers 309 catalogue template: 1015 cataloguers and catalogues: 302–9, 410, 417–19, 427, 455, 801–3, 1001 – cataloguers: Brunet, Coates, Colker, Deschamps, graesse, hain, hesbert, huglo, lowndes, Moreau, Morgan, oates, panzer, pollard & redgrave, raine, sayle, sheppard, weale – catalogues and publications with cataloguing information: eeBo, istC, stC – general: 302–9, 314, 413, 416–17, 420, 426–7, 431, 438, 801–3, 805, 1001, 1013–16, 1018–22, 1023.1507 – numbers: 303, 1016 – of libraries and owners (some may include the 1493 Breviary): Bodleian Library 403, 427, 1002, book-seller’s, auctioneer’s 602, 1010, British Library 402, 426, 453, 1007, 1016, 1023.1530, 1023.1533, Frere, Walter H. 609–10, 1003, 1005, 1009, 1011, Ker, Neil 602, 606, 1002, 1006, (MLGB) 1004, 1009, (MMBL) 1002, 1006, 1008, 1010, 1011, Raine, James 413, 416, Van Dijk, Stephen 1002, 1009

– of the 1493 Breviary: Amiet 302, 423, 614–15, 1023.1507, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, Bohatta 302, 420, 423, 431, 614–15, 1016, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1517, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555, Coates, Alan 403, 408, 410, 416, 425–9, 433, 441, 804, 905, 1022, 1023.1493, Duff, Edward Gordon 307, 313, 401, 409, 413, 423, 425, 432–3, 438, 439–40, 443, 444, 452, 455, 510, 514, 606, 615, 801, 803, 1023.1493, GW (Gesamtkatalog) 302, 423, 425, 432, 439–41, 443–5, 447, 453, 514, 1023.1493, Maittaire 302, 410, 420, 438, 1023.1493 catchwords: 440 Cathedral: Ripon 606, 1006, York (Chapter) 604 chapels: 311 Chapter: 413, 1011 Chaworth, thomas (knight): 609 Christe Jesu: 508 chronology: 606 Clair, Colin: 310 clerics: 309–10 Coates, alan: see under cataloguers Colker, Marvin (cataloguer): 1003 collation: 410, 433, 515, 606, 1023.1555 colophon: 313, 404, 410, 418–20, 423, 424–6, 438, 441, 447, 614, 701, 703, 802, 1020, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555, pl.4.2, pl.7.1 colour: 309–10, 419, 513, 707, 1020 – red: 309–10, 401, 410, 419, 421, 453, 513, 701, 707, 1015

index columns: 306, 401, 504, 611, 904, 1012, 1019 commemoration(s): 445, 501–2, 607, 610, 612, 802, 1012, 1023.1507 Common of saints: see liturgy, books, structure – Common of Apostles: 1012, of a Matron 437, of One Virgin 406, 437, 1023.1507, of Several Virgins 437, of various specified saints 411, 1023.1507, 1023.1526 compositor: 309, 448, 451, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 804, 805 Continent, printed on: 309–10, 312, 411 Convocation, of Canterbury: 503 Cooke (owner): 1023.1526.5.a Corpus Antiphonalium Officii: see Cao corrections: 451, 515, 802 cropped, cropping: 405, 426, 1023. 1493.2.c cue (for initials, signatures, etc.): 435, 437, 454, 509, 714 cue (for responsory repetenda): 512 Cultor agri: 508 Dates (to distinguish them from the paragraph number, the dates are bold. the subheadings are centuries.) – fourteenth: 1300? 1005, 1319 1005, 1387 1009 – fifteenth (excluding reference to the Breviary of 1493): 403, 1401 606, 1410 609, 1418 606, 1460 609, 1480 503, 1488 503, 1489 503, 1493 year 503, 504, 510, 1495 401, 1498 410 – sixteenth: 412, 429, 503, 1500 309, 1507 446, 510, 614, 1023.1507,

181

1023.1509, 1509 313, 1023.1507, 1023.1509, 1513 309, 1516 407, 1023.1517, 1517 313, 614–15, 1017, 1023.1517, 1023.1518, 1023.1526, 1518 703, 1023.1518, 1023.1520, 1023.1533, 1521 612, 1524 510, 614–15, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1555, 1526 313, 413, 416, 446, 447, 504, 510, 612, 614–15, 703, 1017, 1023.1517, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555, 1530 1023.1518, 1023.1533, 1533 313, 510, 614, 703, 1023.1518, 1023.1526, 1023.1530, 1023.1533, 1535 447, 1538 412, 1544 605, 1549 605, 1555 447–8, 614–15, 1023.1524. (kerver)1.b, 1023.1526, 1023.1555, 1556 448, 1579 452 – seventeenth: 1683 513, 1698 414, 1699 415 – eighteenth: 1715 415, 1725 415, 1731 415–16, 1733 1023.1526, 1736 416, 1751 448, 1764 415, 1789 416 – nineteenth: 1826 438, 1828 302, 1830 415, 1859 1017, 1868 1023.1507, 1871 409, 1887 1023.1524, 1896 413 Dedication (see under feasts): 604 defaced, defacing: 404, 412, 415–16, 605, 607, 611–13 de langendorff, peter adam (early 16th-century publisher in Basel): 407, 1023.1493.2.e Deschamps, pierre (bibliographer): 313, 410, 1023.1526, 1023.1533 Deus deus: 454 dictionaries: 304

182

index

Dictionnaire, see Deschamps: 313 Digne fratres: 509 diocese: 413, 510, 605, 607–8, 610, 613, 1002, 1006, 1008 discontinuity in reproduction: see under technology Dixi custodiam: 454 Dixit Dominus: 454 Dixit insipiens: 454 Dominus illuminatio: 454 doxology: 512 Droste, Diane: 1005, 1007, 1009 Dublin: 501, 604, 611, 1002–3 Durham: 426, 1006 eboracensis (and variants): see York ecclesiologist: 420, 1016, 1023.1507, 1023.1517, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555 economy: 802 edition, issue: 201, 452, 805 edwards, owain tudor: 311 eeBo (early english Books online): 302, 423, 433, 441, 615, 701, 901, 1015, 1023.1493.4.c, 1023.1524 egmondt, egmundt (sponsor): 312, 401, 1023.1493 eire: 1003 elephants: 1023.1526, 1023.1533 ely: 1007 endleaf, endpapers: 407, 416, 703, 803, 1023.1493.2.e england, english: 301–2, 304–7, 309–10, 402, 412, 415–16, 504, 801–2, 1004–12 estC: 302, 423, 433, 441, 1023.1493 everingham: see arundel 1006 Exaudi Christe : 421 exemplars: 513

expense, expensis, impensis: (see §vi, a sub-subsection within section 2 of the catalogue of printed sources in ¶1023) 312–13, 401, 701, 1019, 1023.1493.3.b, 1023.1526, 1023.1533 – see also sponsors Ex summa rerum: 508 Exulantis predia: 508 Exulat vir: 508 Exultate Deo: 454 facsimile: 602, 612, Ch.7, 803, 901–2, 904, 1008 fascicle: 431 feasts: see also commemorations – Christological: 411, 506, All Saints 445, 454, 1023.1533, Ascension 405, 454, Ascension 454, Christmas 411, 445, 505, 1023.1526, Corpus Christi 454, Dead 612, Easter 454, 505, 1023.1507.2.a, 1023.1518.1.a, 1023.1526, Epiphany 405, 411, 505, 612, Holy Innocents 612, Holy Name of Jesus 503–4, 606, 608, 610, 1009, 1023.1526, Nativity 450, 454, Pentecost 405, 454, Transfiguration 503–4, 606, 608, 610, 1009, 1023.1526, Trinity 422, 454, 501, 604, 1002, 1003, 1023.1555 – fixed-date: 411 – Marian offices: 445, 612, Annunciation 454, Assumption 454, Commemoration 445, 454, Nativity 454, Purification 435, 505, Visitation 309, 445, 503, 504, 526, 608, 612, 1009, 1017 – new feasts: see Nova Festa and Officia nova

index – other: Dedication 501, 504, 609–10, 1003, 1008–9, Deposition 411, 502, duplex 612, feastday, feastdates 502, 604, 905, Octave 405, 411, 501, suffrages 502, 707 – principal feast: 603–4 – relics: 501, 604, 607 feather, John: 309, 402 Felix locus felix: 508 Ferro pressos: 508 flyleaf: 703, 1023.1526 folded, folding: 427–8, 434, 436–7, 450–1 foliation: 430, 432, 441–4, 451, 515, 802, 901, 904, 1015, 1023.1493.2.a, errors 442, 447, folio number 404, 408, 432, 435, 438–42, 445–7, 455, 515, 701, 705, 707, 710, 715, 804–5, 902, 1016, 1023.1493, 1023.1526, omitted 1023.1507.2.a, 1023.1533.2.a font: 441, 445, 453, 515 format: 310, 427, 514, 614, 801–2, 804, 902–3, 905, 1014–15, 1019, 1023.1524.(printer unknown).1.a, 1023.1533 formatting: 417, octavo 415, 427, 614, 1023.1524, sextodecimo 614 forme: 428, 434, 436, 447, 449, 451 fothergill, Marmaduke (collector): 413, 415–16, 1023.1526 fragments: 313, 401–3, 405, 407–8, 426, 455, 505, 1007, 1013, 1018, 1023.1493 frame: see technology, electronic 436, 455, photographic 701–4, 706–7, 805, 901–2, 1023.1507 france: 310, 1023.1518 freez (early York printer): 309 french: 310, 448, 1023.1507.1.a

183

frère, edouard (bibliographer): 311, 514, 805, 1016, 1023.1517 frere, walter h. (cataloguer): Biblioteca Musico-liturgica: 609–10, 1003, 1005, 1009 gachet: see gaschet galleys: 451, 804 galligan, francesca: 427 gaschet, J. gaschet, ioannis gaschet(t)i, gachet, gatchet(t), Jo. gauchet, ioannis: 312–13, 406, 1023.1517, 1023.1526, 1023.1533 gaskell, philip (bibliographer): 309, 434, 440, 447–8, 451–2, 511, 514 gathering: 430–1, 437, 1021 gedge: 313, 406, see gaschet gee, stacey: 309, 312–13 goes, hugo (printer): 309, 1023. 1509 gordon (owner): 1023.1526.2.a gough, richard (collector): 410, 416, 607, 1009, 1023.1493.2.a, 1023.1517.4.a, 1023.1526.3.b, see British Topography graesse, richard (cataloguer): 438, 1023.1493.4.c, 1023.1526 grolier Club, new York: 1012 gutenberg Bible: 448, 515 gutter: 428, 709 GW (gesamtkunstwerke): see catalogues … of the 1493 Breviary haebler: 453 hain, ludwig (bibliographer): 302, 420, 438, 1023.1493 hamman(us), hertzog: 401, 424, 446, 453, 505, 1023.1493 hand-press: 447

184

index

handwritten: 410, 414, 416, 421, 428, 454, 605–6, 714–15, 1023.1507.2.a, 1023.1526.2.a harewood, parish church: 604, 1011 headers, headings: 402, 405–8, 420, 436, 450–1, 502, 802, 901, 1014– 15, 1019, 1023.1507, 1023.1530, fig.4.5 helmingham hall: 1011 henry Bradshaw society 304, 1002 heraldry: 609 hereford: city 313, Use 445 hertzog: see hamman hesbert, rené-Jean (cataloguer): Corpus Antiphonalium Officii 1002 historia: 716 hornken: 407 Hosti pandit: 508 hughes, andrew: 502, 602, 614, 701, 903, 1002, 1008 – LMLO. Late medieval liturgical offices: 602, 903, 1002, 1006–7, 1010–12 – Medieval manuscripts for Mass and Office : 1003–4, 1007–9, 1011, 1023.1507 huglo, Michel: 1009 hyemalis: 416, 1023.1507.2.a, 1023.1526, 1023.1533 hymn: 707, 1023.1507 hymnals: 1002 iCep: 614–15, 1023.1524, 1023.1526 ideal copy: 403 identification: 408, 410, 418, 423, 452, 510, 515, 804, 1001, 1023.1524 impensis (see expensis): 312–13, 401, 416, 424, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1517

importation of books: 309–10, 312, 614 imposition: 428, 434, 450–1 impress: 415 imprint: 401, 410, 417–20, 453, 1019, 1023.1493.2.a, 1023.1507, 1023.1517 incunabula: 302, 305, 309, 314, 423, 453 initials: 453–4, 513, 713–14 injunctions (royal: re Becket): 412, 603, 607 inking: 404 invitatory (Ad Thome): 508 ireland: 302, 611 issue: see edition istC: 302, 701, 1016, 1023.1493 Jacet granum: 508 Jacob, edward (collector): 416 Jesu bone : 508 kalendar: see liturgy, books, structure 605, 610 – obits 1008–9 – position within the book 411 ker, neil: 602, 606, 1002, 1006, Medieval libraries of Great Britain and Medieval manuscripts in British Libraries kerver (printer): 1023.1524 kingston-on-thames: 608, 1009 lacuna: 445, 706, 709, 804, 1014 landoia: 424, 1023.1493 (de) langendorff: 407, 1023.1493.2.b langton, stephen (archbishop of Canterbury): 509 Lapis iste: 508 laudibus: 707

index launton: 608, 1009 lawley, stephen (editor): 305, 401, 403, 409–10, 413–16, 427, 429–31, 438, 440, 503–4, 511–13, 615, 703, 1007, 1018, 1023.1493.4.a, 1023.1507, 1023.1517, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1530, 1023.1533, 1023.1555 lectionary: 509 leeds university, Brotherton Collection: 1006, 1010 lepreux georges (bibliographer): 448 lesson: 509–12, 608, 610, 612, 1002, 1007–9, 1011, 1023.1526 libellus: 309, 445, 502, 605, 610 litany: 502, 611 literature: 305, 307, 309, 312, 416, 602, 803, 1001 liturgiae: 416 liturgists: 515, see frere, hesbert, hughes, huglo, pfaff, salisbury liturgy – books: Breviary passim, Missal 1011, 1023.1493, 1023.1526 – books (structure): 304, 412, 446, 506, 510, 613, 615, 706, 802, 804, 905, Common of Saints (see also under this heading) 411, 431, 435, 437, 441, 443–5, 454, 501, 505–6, 508, 607, 710, 802, 1008–9, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555, Kalendar 411, 424, 431, 438, 441, 445, 455, 501–2, 510, 604–5, 607–13, 705, 707, 802, 1002, 1006–9, 1017, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555, Psalter 408, 411, 415, 431, 441, 445, 454, 501–2, 505–6, 606–7, 612, 802, 1002, 1006–9, 1012, 1023.1493,

185

1023.1507, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555, Sanctorale 408, 411, 415–16, 428–41, 443–7, 454–5, 501–2, 505, 510, 514, 604–5, 607–8, 610, 612, 615, 708, 802, 1007, 1009, 1017, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555, Temporale 405, 411, 415, 431–2, 441, 445, 447, 505–6, 607, 615, 802, 804, 1003, 1007, 1009, 1023.1507, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555 – for nicholas: see under saints – service books: 310–11, 313, 401, 416 – services: 506, 508–10, 1012, Lauds 410, 502, 512, 1023.1507, Mass 410, 504, 607, 1011, Matins 309, 502, 508, 512, 612, 1011, Terce 408, Vespers 309, 408, 410, 502, 508, 1023.1507 location: 303–4, 413, 432, 440, 506, 602, 615, 703, 805, 1009–10, 1013–15, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1517, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555 lombards: 453 london: 504, 1007–8, 1023.1509, British Library 402, 405, 426, 453, 502, 608, 703, 1002, 1007, 1020, 1023.1493, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1530, Lambeth Palace library 604, 1008 loughborough university: 402, 1023. 1493 lovell (owners): 612 lowndes, william t. (bibliographer): 438, 1023.1493, 1023.1526 Maggs Brothers (antiquarian booksellers): 1010

186

index

Magnificat: 309, 508, 1023.1507 Manual: 1002, 1023.1509 manuscript: see also source 305, 308, 507–8, 511–13, 515, 601–2, 604, 612–13, 616, 706, 801–5, 1001–2, 1014, continued use after printing 603, 605, dating 603, 606, 609, exemplar, tradition, design 310, 440, 506, 511–13, 804, new feasts 502, 605, manuscripts, liturgical, database 602 margin: 414, 454, 513, 612, 709, 714–15, 1009, 1019 Mary, Blessed virgin: see under feasts, and 424, 505, 1009 Maunde thompson, edward: 414 measurement: 427–8, 514, 802 memorial: 610 Merlin: 448 Milner or Mylner, ursyn (printer): 309 Minster (York): 413–16, 604–5, 1008, 1010 miracles: 506 misbound: 708 misnumbered: 435 misread: 303, 313, 441–2, 444 Missal: 1011, 1023.1493, 1023.1526 MlgB, MMBl: see ker mode: 508 Monachus sub: 508 monastic: 309, 412, 503, 507–8, 1002 Morgan, nigel: 602, 608, 1002, 1007, 1009–10 Mundi florem: 508 mutilated: 405, 426, 1023.1493, 1023.1533 Mylner: see Milner 309 Nec in agnos: 508 non-sarum: 610, 1009

normans: 310 norwich: 1007 notations: 414 noted Breviary: see also skelton and sources (london, lambeth palace) 503, 505, 602, 612, 1006, 1008–9, 1011 nottingham(shire): 609–10, 1008 Nova festa (print of about 1513): 503 Novis fulget: 508 numerals: 454, 1023.1507 oates, John (cataloguer): 406, 420, 1023.1493.4.c obits: 605–6, 609, 612, 1008–9 office: 309, 408, 412, 445, 448, 501–10, 604, 607–8, 610–12, 903, 1006–9, 1011, 1017, 1023.1526 Officia nova (print of about 1513): 309, 503 omissions (of folios): see technology opening(s) 707, duplicated or omitted in reproduction 306, 702–3, 705, 707–8, 804, 904, 1023.1507, 1023.1526, first or opening page or text 418–19, 422–3, 802, 1015, 1019–20, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555, verso and recto in the same frame 303, 455, 703–6, 709, 901–2 orthography (vagaries of): 511 oscott: 1023.1524 owners (early owners – persons or colleges, etc. – of liturgical books): see Blew, Bute (Marquess of), Chaworth, Cooke, fothergill, frere, gaschet, gough, gordon, harewood, Jacob, oscott, sherbrooke, ushaw

index oxford(shire): 312, 402, 414, 441, 1009, Bodleian Library (see also under sources) 402–3, 408, 410, 416, 426–7, 428, 502, 607, 611, 614, 703, 1002–3, 1009, 1020–1, 1023.1493, 1023.1507.4.a, 1023.1517, 1023. 1526.2.b, Gough collection 416 paleographers: 606 panzer, georg (bibliographer): 438, 1023.1493 parchment: 706, 707 paris (and variants): 210, 310, 313, 416, 446, 448, 614, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1533 parish: 311, 608, 610, 1006, 1011 Passio (of thomas Becket): 509, 510 passions: 506, 509 Pastor cesus: 508 paulinus, (arch)bishop of York: 501, 506, 604, 607, 1011 peterborough: 507 peter lombard’s Sententiarum textus (see sources, ushaw fragments): 407 pfaff, richard: 510 philadelphia: 803 pica, pie, pye: 1023.1509, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555 pierre regnault (rouen, printer, 1489–1520): 1023.1507 pierre violette (printer): 448 Placat bella: 512–13 pollard & redgrave: 420, 425, 1016 pope, papa: 612, 1023.1526 Post sex annos: 508 pressmark: 414, 416 print run: 444, 446, 514, 805 printed edition: see edition 303, 420, 601–2, 804, 1002, 1011, 1013

187

printer, printing: 310, 312, 314, 401, 410, 418, 423, 428, 435–7, 440, 444–9, 453, 504, 515, 614, 616, 802, 805, 1014–15, 1019, 1023.1507, 1023.1517, 1023.1524, 1023.1555 – see Bonhomme, Boursette, Byrckman, freez, goes, hamman, kerver, Milner, pynson, regnault, violette, wansfort, worde – binder: 437 – printer’s device: 401, 423, 704, 1023.1493, cover, pl.9.1, forme 428, 434, 436, 447, 449, 451, furniture, stone 428, 451 – typesetter: 451 proctor, robert (cataloguer): 420, 453, 1023.1493 proof, proofed, proofreading: 451, 511, 514, 805 provenance: 413 province of Canterbury: 503 psalm: 454 psalter: see liturgy, books, structure publisher: see also expensis, impensis 303, 310, 312–13, 418, 704, 805, 1013, 1015, 1019, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1517, 1023.1533, 1023.1555 punctuation: 409, 511, 805, colons 511 pye: see pica pynson, richard (printer): 504 Quaritch (antiquarian bookseller): 1010, 1012, 1023.1526 Quarta: 450 quaternion: 406, 431, 433–7, 449 quinion: 431 raine, James (cataloguer): 413, 415–16, 1023.1526, 1023.1533

188

index

reames, sherry: 412, 509 recusants: 612 reformation: 310–11, 415–16, 607, 609, 611–12, 616 register (tabula): 418, 802, 1015, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555 registration: 309 regnault, françois (paris, printer, 1512–51): 416, 446, 1023.1526, 1023.1533 regnault, pierre (rouen, printer, 1489–1520): 448 renumbering: 446–7 repetenda: 512 reprinted, reprinting: 437, 446–7, 1013, 1023.1526 reproductions: see technology 404, 414, 419–20, 441–2, 447, 455, 701–4, 706, 710, 713, 804, 1015, 1021 responsory: 412, 508–10, 512, 1005, 1007, 1013 ripon: 604, 606, 1006, 1010 robinson, william (1686): 1023.1526 roman, rome: 414, 453–4, 510, 1023.1507 rouen: 310, 313, 446–8, 1023.1507, 1023.1517, 1023.1555 rubric, rubricated: 405, 411, 448, 453, 504, 510, 513, 604, 612, 701–2, 707, 712, 1004, 1007, 1009, 1012 sabato: 405 saints (see under individual names, below, for both main and translation offices): 404, 411, 502, 506, 607–8, 613, 1009, 1023.1526 – anthony: 610 – Chad: 445, 612

– Cuthbert: 612, 1023.1526, defaced 607, 1023.1526 – edward (Deposition of): 411 – ethelbert: 445 – etheldreda: 445, 503, 610 – fredeswida, frideswide: 1007 – gregory, pope: 612 – John of Beverley: 410, 501–2, 506, 604, 607–8, 610, 1003, 1006, 1007, 1009, 1011, Translation 501–2, 610 – John of Bridlington: 610 – katherine: 408 – Martin (translation): 408 – nicholas: 410, 502, 608, Translation 502, 504, 608, 1007, 1009 – osmund: 503 – paul (Commemoration): 501, 610, 1003 – peter and paul: 408, 445, 505, 1009 – thomas Becket: 404, 412, 445, 501, 503, 505–7, 604, 607, 1002, 1007, 1011, 1023.1526, defaced, excised 607, lessons 412, 1002–3, 1007–9, 1011, main office 309, 412, 445–6, 448, 507, 509–10, 515, 603, 605, 607, 610–12, 1002–3, 1007, 1009, 1011, pl.4.5 Matins 1005, 1007, Second Vespers 309, sungtexts 508, 612, 1002–3, 1007, 1009, 1011, Translation 404, 412, 445, 508, 509–10, 512, Sarum lessons (for the Translation) 509, Vita 412, York office 1011 – thomas of hereford: 1009 – wenefred: 1009 – wilfrid: 423, 501, 604, 607, 610, 1003, 1006–7, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, Translation 501, 604

index – william of York: 411, 423, 445, 501–2, 505–6, 604, 607, 610, 612, 1003, 1005–9, 1011, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, Translation 405, 411, 501, 505, 604, 607, 611–12, 1003, 1006–7, 1009, 1023.1526.2.a.viii salisbury, Matthew: 306, 308, 428, 710, 1002 Salvum me : 454 sanctorale: see liturgy, books, structure sander, Max (bibliographer): 420, 432–3, 440, 453, 801, 1023.1493 sarum (see use of): Breviary 447–8, 703, 1923.1018, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1555, kalendar: 609, 615, 1023.1524, 1023.1555 Satane satellites: 508 sayle, Charles (cataloguer): 302, 420, 423, 615, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1555 scribe, script: 511, 513, 609–10, 805 scripture: 509 sequence (of texts): 427–8, 432, 435, 442, 451, 505, 612, 804, 1002, 1007, 1021 sessions, william (bibliographer): 309–10, 312–13, 448, 513, 615, 803 sexternion: 431, 433, 435, 436 sharpe, richard: 414, 416 sheets (uncut): 434, 447, 515 shelfmark: 303, 403, 407, 1015, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1533 sherbrooke (owner): 1023.1524, 1023.1526 signature: 410, 426–2, 403–8, 410, 423, 426–7, 430–3, 435–7, 440–1, 443–5, 448, 450–1, 501, 504, 707–8, 802, 804, 901–3, 905, 1015,

189

1019, 1021, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555, defective 403–4, of fragments 405–8, number 405, 432, signature 35 406, 435, 437, 443, fig. 4.2–4.4, structure 430–3 sion: see sources, london, lambeth palace 604–5, 1008–9 sizes (of books. given for each printed book in subsections 2a, 3a, 4a, and 5a of ¶1023): 426–7, 434, 514 skelton: see sources, manuscripts, london, lambeth palace 503, 505, 604, 607, 611–12, 1008 slocum, kay: 412 slugs: 513 sources: see individual places (aberdeen, Cambridge, Dublin, london, loughborough, nottingham, oxford, ushaw) – manuscript numbers are joined to their fonds by a period so that they may be more easily identified in the following paragraphs. Call numbers of printed books are similarly concatenated. – manuscript: Aberdeen university, Burnet Psalter 502, Arundel, Castle library (no shelfmark: York Antiphonal) 605, 1004, Cambridge, university library 2602 608, Dublin, trinity College library ms 85 510–13, 604, 1002–3, ms.87 604, 1009, Durham, university library Cosin.V.I.2 605, 1006, London, British library add.28598 605, 608, 1002, ms.Harley.2785 502, London, lambeth palace library Sion. (the Skelton Breviary) 605,

190

index

1009, Nottingham university, special Collections (the Wollaton Antiphonal 501, 1008, Oxford, Bodleian library Gough.lit. ms.1 607, Laud.misc 84, 505, 607, 611, 1003, 1008, 1009, Laud.misc.299 502, 602, 608, 1002, 1009, Ripon, cathedral ms.8 1010, Rome, Biblioteca angelica ms.440 510, Urbana, university of illinois library ms.130 1012, York, Chapter library (no shelfmark) 1023.1524, (shelfmark not given) 1023.1526, add.68 604, 611, add.69 604–7, 611, 1011, add.70 605 add.115 604, X.P.25 1023.1517, 1023.1526, X.P.7 1023.1526 XVI.O.23 607, XVI.O.9 607 – printed: Cambridge, emmanuel College library 4.4.21 309n7, London, British library C.35.a.15 614, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, C.35.b.4 1023.1526, C.35.g.20 1023.1555, C.35.h.18 1023.1526, IA.23357 (fragments of 1493) 402, 405, 1023.1493, Loughborough, university library, Bate Collection (this is the 1493 Breviary) 403–4, 409–10, 412–16, 418–19, 423, 425, 428–9, 431–3, 435, 438–41, 454–5, 504, 701, 708, 901, 905, Oxford, Bodleian library Gough [Missals] 6 (this is the 1493 Breviary) 402–4, 409–10, 412–14, 416, 419, 423, 428–9, 431–3, 435, 439–41, 454–5, 504, 701, 708, 901, Gough 59 1023.1517.4.a, 1023.1526.3.b, Inc.c.I4.9 (fragments of 1493) 407, 426, 1023.1493.2.d, Ushaw,

College library (fragments, shelf mark XVIII.C.5.8) 1023.1493 spacing: 513, 515 sponsors (see subsection vi within section 2 of the catalogue of printed sources in ¶1023) sponsors, donors (expensis, impensis): see Barrevelt, egmondt, and passim within 1023 springfield: 608, 1005 see sources, manuscripts, Cambridge university library ms 2602 stationer(s): 309, 312–13, 802 stC (Short Title Catalogue) 302, 304, 402, 439, 447–8, 615, 703, 803, 1016, 1023.1493, 1023.1507, 1023.1518, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555 stick: 448 stitched: 431 stop-press: 304, 513, 616, 802 Strictis Thomas: 508 structure: 402, 418, 423, 427, 430–2, 444, 515, 802, 905, 1002, 1015, 1019 stubs: 431 Studens livor: 508 summer volume of a liturgical book: 607, 614–15, 715–16, 802, 1011, 1019, 1023.1507, 1023.1517, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1530, 1023.1533, 1023.1555 Summo sacerdocio: 508 sunday: 411, 501, 504–5, 610, 715–16, 1023.1555 sungtexts: 506–8, 510, 1002 surtees society: 305, 312, 401, 409, 1012 switzerland: 510 synodalia: 610

index tabula: 409, 425, 432, 438, 440, 1023.1493, pl.4.3 technology (of reproductions) see also printing: 309, 515, Ch.7, 801–3, 1013, 1014 – digital image or facsimile, digitizing, resources: 305–6, 410, 427, 455, 515, Ch.7 (esp. 701, 705–7, 709–14), 802–3, 901–2, 904, 1015 – electronic: 805, frame (in reproductions) 434, 436–7, 447, 449, 451, 455, 513, 701–4, 706–7, 805, 901–2, 1023.1507 – exposure: 306, 455, 703, 706 – faults in reproductions: discontinuities in filming 707–9, omissions 704, 1015, 1021 – microfiche: 515, Ch.7 (esp. 701, 703–4, 713), 803, 901–2, 1015 – microfilm: 302, 410, 441, 515, Ch.7 (esp. 701–4, 710–13), frame (pf.) 902, full-frame 702, perforated 702 – photographs, photographer, photographic: 304–6, 404, 416, 448, 455, 515, 701–2, 706–7, 709, 804, 902, 904, 1023.1507, highresolution 455, 701, 703–4 – scanning: 703–4, 707 template: 1014 temporale: see liturgy, books, structure Thomas manum mittit: 508 Thome cedunt: 508 thoresby, ralph (owner): 414–16, 1023.1493 title-page: 401, 410, 414–16, 418–19, 421, 428, 447, 502, 614, 701, 703, 802, 1015, 1019–20, 1023.1493,

191

1023.1507, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555, pl.4.1 transcription (brackets used in): 423, 432 translation (language): 509, 805 transmission, of texts: 511 traylen (antiquarian bookseller): 1010 trimming of leaves: 404, 428, 455 turnovers: 513 type(face): 311, 436, 442, 447–8, 451–2, 453, 513, 805, 1023.1555 Typenkunde : 453 Typenrepertorium: 453 typescript: 1002 typeset(ter): 451, 514, 805 Typogr. antiq. see ames typography: 309, 448, 452, 515, typographical characters 427, 449, 513–14, 704, 1016 uMi (university Microfilms international): 302, 446, 701–3, 707, 901, 1022, 1023.1507, films 59:10 703, 59:12 1023.1524, 65:2 1023.1507, 74:1 1023.1526, 106:07 703, 1023.1493 underlining: 454 underwriter: 401 ursyn: see Milner 309 use (liturgical): 303, 309, 412, 445, 501, 506–10, 515, 602–5, 608–12, 1002, 1006–7, 1009, 1021, 1023.1526, English 310, 602, Hereford 445, Sarum 401, 412, 445, 507–10, 608–10, 612, 615, 1002, 1008–9, 1023.1524, 1023.1555, York see also under York 608, 611

192

index

ushaw College: see sources, printed, ushaw 402, 426, 1023.1493 variants: 509, 511, 513, 515, 802, 1007 vellum: 310, 1012 venice: 401, 415, 424, 504, 1023.1493 vigilia: 405, 450 violette, pierre (printer): 446, 448, 1023.1507, 1023.1517 visitation (episcopal): 1023.1526 wansfort, gerard (sponsor): 1023.1507 warehousing of formes: 449 weale, w.h. James (bibliographer): 423 william la Zouche: 413, 415 winter volume of a liturgical book: 416, 614, 802, 1003, 1019, 1023.1507, 1023.1517, 1023.1526, 1023.1533, 1023.1555 wollaton: see sources, manuscripts, nottingham 501, 503, 510, 604–6, 608–10, 1008 woodcut, wood-engraving: 310, 423, 438, 440, 1023.1493, 1023.1526x8 worde, wynkyn de: 1023.1509 York: 415, 420–4, 610, 612, 1003, 1007, 1009, 1012, 1023 in general – city: 309, 313, 423, 503, 510, 608, 614, 1008, 1023.1507, 1023.1509 – ecclesiastical: archbishops see John of thoresby, william la Zouche, william of York 413, 415, 501, 1008, bishop see paulinus 501,

chant 602, Chapter 604–7, 611, 1011, 1020, 1023.1517, 1023.1524, 1023.1526, collegiate chapel of St Mary and Holy Angels 414, 1002, 1004, diocese 502, 510, 609–10, 1002, 1006, 1008, feasts 610, 1008, Kalendar 501, 610, 1023.1555, lessons (Becket) 510, 1003, 1009, liturgy 308, 502, 1002, Temporale, Common, and Sanctorale 1009, 1023.1524, Minster 413–14, 416, 608, 610, 1010, 1020, 1023.1526, Minster Library 413–14, 416, 1011, 1023.1517, Psalter 1006, relics 604, saints 612, 1007, Use 305, 309, 401, 409, 411, 445, 501–3, 506–10, 603–5, 609–12, 615, 1002, 1005, 1007–9, 1011, 1023.1509, 1023.1518, 1023.1524, 1023.1526 – manuscripts and printed books: see also under sources books 401, 412, 510, 610, 1013, 1023.1524, books for the Divine Office: Breviaries 305, 309, 313–14, 401–2, 413, 446–8, 501–2, 504, 506, 509–10, 515, 614, 703, 802, 1003, 1012, 1023.1524, service books 1023.1530, printed books lists 615, 1017 – Office nova: 445 – printer: 309–10 – stationer: 406 Yorkshire: 415–16, 608–10 Zouche: 413