A LEAF FROM A GUTENBERG BIBLE ILLUMINATED IN ENGLAND
EBERHARD KONIG
OLD libraries, even those with a great tradition in providing information of a high standard, may sometimes benefit from visitors who insist on not confining themselves to what is listed or catalogued, although the outcome will frequently be—to the annoyance of all concerned—that the search was for something that does not necessarily exist. This situation is all too familiar to those art historians who are experts of illumination and who trace special styles of decoration in manuscripts or printed books; moreover, they do not very often meet librarians who take them to the shelves or are willing to waste days looking for one item which cannot be identified by a precise shelf-mark. It has happened several times that I wished to find objects in the British Library which I could not properly identify, and I have encountered the kindest possible help on each occasion, even when in the end we had to conclude that the book we had looked for did not really exist. ^ But the last time this happened the search was successful: to her own astonishment Lotte Hellinga found in the British Library collection of incunabula a forgotten leaf of a Gutenberg Bible which is not listed in its catalogue, BMC^ one of tbe greatest of all catalogues of incunabula.^ It was not by divination that I asked to see this leaf. Seymour de Ricci had listed it in 1911,-^ and Paul Schwenke, perhaps the only scholar to make a thorough study of all the copies of the Gutenberg Bible known during his lifetime, and who was well acquainted with questions of binding and decoration, described the leaf in his Ergdnziingsband (1923) to the first (and brilliant) facsimile of the Berlin copy of the Gutenberg Bible."^ Subsequently the fragment vanished from the Gutenberg literature, and apparently also from the memories of incunabulists. Don Cleveland Norman, who provided the longest list of single leaves of the Gutenberg Bible, did not know it existed,^ and on my visit to the British Library an application slip with Schwenke's reference: 'Bagford Collection, Sloane 1044' was rejected as containing a paradox, since the two names Sloane and Bagford appeared to be mutually exclusive. In fact, Sloane 1044 is mentioned on the last page of A. W. Pollard's 'Rough List of the Contents of the Bagford Collection' of 1902-4,"^ but this does not inform us about its location. However, the leaf was found in the end, in a guard-book filled with interesting fragments bearing the number Sloane 1044. It was subsequently detached from this volume and press-marked according to the system used for incunabula, and is now known as IC.56a. The leaf was cleaned successfully in the manuscript conservation workshop, and the accompanying reproductions show its present state of preservation (figs, i, 2).
32 -::m '.^^\- qm foninat iiwarnr fiia * ire rar i % inmrccoriimarami.iDiraflutit#o. :qmaiitfrminat p in Ipiritu: Hr Ipmm mttrt mm rcecno. nongftnmsi.lCarannramnmpifnt j&onuautffanmttG no brfirmmuo: &flntu:^m?autaDitfua tiporrnnm fuo mfcan^im orfiam^ jfrgo Dinn mnpue l^rin^ o{tr^ A tur:ut non iur bonu aD om£Q: maftor aiuf liteftctpriaotiiamra manui^ taxm: q ; mnij^ mimnolutpiatEicmmtnt^ iia*hnpulil(ma*lu{una*r&olpQ frcui- mount DOS arcunbt: tantu m roma iue-omrfina^inimmdt-ratmoiifQ • m&t gfminont no pananf. jRrq^tOi qmnrcunOutur irgtmmSotnut:!ei> muitfU * t^Oi^taUta • tbcirtamj- oluc uoBnrcun&intmramnsSca [n^tionro*iqi|8 fimilia:qpDiro oriatut. |!Hidji autabfu gloriari firut pDm: quoma qni ^alia liirim mircDni no&n it^rfu m&i:p(t agum rcgnu Oti no tonfFqumt. jfru quf inirt)! muHns miafi£u& tOr.'i rgo ttueautlptritustKcaritao-gaumu- ^; nmlio.i|n wM mim itf ffn nnn ami' pai*paamna*bmimiitae * bonitaa* ^ n&o aliquitj ualn nrqt^riu:iiEttno< 4 na rrcatuia.fr quininq;tjarrcgula •'JTA fura;it:patfU9iiloo 5|umrmolii nan tft Iff. llini Ti;;. 'fralirt Da. i?>r tmto ni miftii >uiJ! cavpKf niro pamr.
mimm|pp tcit t^amo I oliquQ {clida*uoa qfpin Ch tifaiftl Ehcaur i fiat. ritu Imitano:ranfittca8 mpra nn tu at apl'ns rn:itron&fliqfi> mnpttna. JUttr altm? onrca poztatt: ^ficaDnpgjfilbltftjRafiqe q t^ftiraat ft aliquiD fflft lu niiftil fit: tpt If frOimt. SpiK^mn fuu^btt uolutatfim fifrfcsl liindmqm numomtsfnuponabtt. flut bijs qui tatt^r^af oobo: A i|m & rari^E^at in omnto bome. )Ho6 tetrrarc. lDr^noimDnur.ipnermm ftpwnaumt 'MVSEVM
^ ^?:'PMM
Z'?;?. /. Leaf from a 42-line Bible, [DD]7 recto: beginning o{Epistola ad Ephesios. IC.56a naminaf no fblu t trot fmilofcis ma git ttoa in ma fltm in ftuuron otma rnbtrat rub pebito dlt^ l i immaoUahi d ^E^it tapuc Tupra omnt h^mmritatc.lDuinmftinamtnoQi qgppiT p otiaiitDnf atitmo iQdu txM m ipm quiomniaittomd&aluraplmir. lidim jiofitu uolutatie lut m lou^e - oCbam&tid V ^ gtotiegncfur.i^gtabEimuttnoem na oha in qnito aliquaoo M&l ( :i quo t^atem^ ntten ifilit pimp! poK&aaa attia tim^f^iat^ j) j^ g ^ nut oprcafin &Uoa Diffiluatri quite Uflutt in notes in otmtapimai pcu^ tt noa oinnta aliquaOo murtfaa fu^ Dmrionit notu fatetec nobiefaaamc muamOrftDrnjaiamieFiirt Caaota mm aolutan'e fnr lidm bEncplantu n9 oolutatf tarme i mgitationii: rt tea- q^p p nma natura Bb| irtfimil^ otm.iDr^ tulmne tepocu m&aurare oi am qui tuura eft m nnfrnmiUia^pax fiaqtaltdiqitmralutf^oqqiqq tntnia taritart fua Qua Dd^ noa:i ma no6 fom DOian fum^cpti^nati fttim jpofitu n^ q optcat omia (rdm no6 m&o-tut^ gcada ^a fSuao: et ^tiiunolutanefut: mfim^flauQe tactrurdtamtetiafeOttc&edtm cdtQt^ Atom n^ noequiiatclpaamui^f m^ bua in tn&o itftfn: nt ofimimttin fi^ §o.I|u quo 1006 tu auDdTms ontu omtatid maQdtufaluttaunrmquo naa granr fue in tsnitate Urn uoa in cc fO liKi fttO5f{iifoi onie fantbi :41 piO^ t^cC[Kasn9 m i ^on! aaufiaonismlauO^ no ei opr^bua: urar qma glo ilp&^mirum^ C3dra:nati ma M atftm q rQ In ni&o t^rfu ^ H p rqupgiarauit Icdionc in aiuFS faatorno oOo gra Oe^ ut m illiia ambulrm?. ^ d naa g^ b fi mainot^ntb)meia:nclif {jni nn tia getra t tame i| intebammi ^ludu ^ fuipr glade tta oobia ^v ab ta q Dmf amuifm m tacoemanu' nptig i !a±a:qn:mtajlloiu$!rii nnn n' illuminatoa odba mtijia ue nan adunTatoitf iItat^l i fid: uc DaanaqficIprQ ooramntan^ i jmi^nta ^u no n^ touiiif glottt Ijtaftirano ri^i Fan* dian q (tc ii^mnea magnituis uir^ ante m mSoitpfn Doa^ aliquaixo tuna tfi iavm qui otiiini? [idm opr^ rana loge Eadt eOta^r: m fanguine canonf poc&ir uirmtia quaopccat? mMr miftfJiGiq (ftf mfio:fit&^"9 tllu a momua-tt imu: 1 mttm pantrf matcde (bltna mOuuea ao Dtfcna M in otrftibua inimiddaa in tarnr fuarlegmi mam^ ftipta orane jmnopatu i pttftace tt mi; Deccectftmamaa ut Dnoa con&at uirmtf 1 Daariane-i orarnommqlj in fmimpmin oiin nouu If ominein
J.-^iH!s»«sc*KSlIW!R»»^JR«£
35 show similar markings, sometimes even with the explicit indication 'in refectorio'. ^^ These handwritten additions give therefore a little more certainty to the assumption that Gutenberg printed his Vulgate text primarily for monastic use. ^^ But one really exciting aspect of the leaf justifies the art historian's participation in Gutenberg research; in this particular case his methods may contribute substantial evidence concerning an interesting turning-point in the history of the book. Incunabulists, however, are often reluctant to make use of art-historical research. Binding expertise seems to inspire less doubt; yet when an art historian suggests a localization it is all too quickly remembered how experts of illumination disagree with one another, or even with their own earlier work.^"^ Fortunately, the forgotten British Library leaf does not give rise to any art-historical disagreements; Schwenke's classification of the fragment as 'Undoubtedly English decoration' has not been disputed. He was correct in comparing it with the copy of the New Testament of the 42-line Bible in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth Palace (fig. 3).^^ In fact, the illumination of the British Library leaf is so close in execution to that of the Lambeth copy, that were it not for the preservation of the corresponding leaf in the latter an untrained eye would be convinced that the British Library leaf originally belonged to this copy. The remains of what once were two distinct, fully illuminated copies of the Gutenberg Bible have the following features in common: unlike most extant copies of this edition of the Bible the capitals at the beginning of sentences have not been emphasized by colouring by hand, either by a stroke in red ink common in the German-speaking areas, or a yellow wash as was the practice in France and Flanders. In both copies the two-line initials at the beginning of the chapters follow the same rather unusual scheme and they belong to the same style of alphabet that was widely used in France, the Low Countries, and England. All letters of this kind are executed in blue and placed on rtdfleuronne with a simple system of lines forming lobes round the letter and long trailing lines in the margins. In general they alternate in colour. The proper system would have been an alternation of red and blue with burnished gold on black as seen in Books of Hours, but this was undoubtedly too expensive for a complete Gutenberg Bible. ^^ The colouring of the painted decoration is consistent throughout: rich foliate letters extend into the margins, create a long vertical bar, and finally radiate into the horizontal margins at the top and the bottom of the page. The growth of the foliate system is not very logical, the origin of the vertical bar is difficult to explain; single leaves rise from it and creep round it. In the upper and lower border thin ink lines take over in order to give unity to the design; they form spirals which end rather unexpectedly in heavy leaves of full colour; a regular system of green lobed sprays accompanies the ink spirals like a row of dots. The letter is formed out of decorative foliage and sprouts further leaves. Initials are painted on gold squares which nearly disappear under the heavy foliate fillings of the letter. Very few colours are used: blue, red, pink, green, and burnished gold prevail; white is employed for highlights on pink and blue, and yellow is used on red and green. The impression is very noble; the effect could be called sober were it not for the irregularity of the design and the round and vivid acanthus leaves which appear sometimes unexpectedly. On closer inspection, discrepancies in the distribution of decoration and in style cannot be overlooked. On the British Library leaf, the beginning of the book is distinguished from
36 morOms rtromrOino: uiorrrne afa qmfmnnatiutamrfua-CE ramr ft inuitc wfumainiui.i!iica aut i mfto. mrtctirorrupnoncrqui autfmimat Jspmtu ambulatca otfi&ma tami'^ in fpmm:DripintiimErrtuiraftmia. nong&nms. iLaro raimmnmpifa t iSonunutefanmrto no Df&aamuo: aDuttTuD fpirltu: Tpint? aut a&mua muporc rnim fuo ntrtnn? no Offtnra^ ramc Jirc mini ftbiinuim u aDUfrfa^ mr:ut non qurcuqiuulnaillafana jrannr bonu oD onlra: mannu auK ns. LOa fi ^intu Qumuminmn rftiB oCfiomrftiroo&Dn. iylito Oiblrtrc. ilHanifcaa fuiuautcopcca raraio: quf fuiir fdrnimtio-imnmCi: mnq> namp njguut uoa nrainm: tantu tuD-umrfina-inimumr-roimanra • v 'm§i cfminonf no pananf. fHtt^ nn inulanDnra-irf-ntc-Oiffnifionra-ir qui nrcuaDutur lrgmttu&oOmr;ff& df • inumiE • Ijominijta • rtinftatcs- oolut uoQcircunDiutincamrxe&ia romriTattontoa tjiie finniiarq pQito gtariatui. jfHirt}! autabfit glocian nabiQ licut pDm:quamd qui talia nffi in trurc Dni noftn ibffu mfti: prt aguntrcgnufinnoranfrqumi. jftu> qut mirtji muOua rcua&tua rfi:i tgo dueautfpmtuB rft caritaB • gauDiu- rauOD.^n tnfto mim ibrCu nrqj nnQ pai-panttma-bcnignitae bi n&o aliquiD ualn ntq; nmnuifcO no U ua rctatuca. ftc qnitunqi Ijac rcgula tati fumm: pai fu? lUoo ^ miCmcm non fft Iri. iDui aurnn Dia 1 fug iftaiifl &n. iDt racranmi o mOi: rammi fua tmd&jEmint mittjimolEftiia Iit.ifgo mf ftiginata irupifrmtila.nrp.tM tmi i^u i tartutt mto pono.iBratia i muinf fpinturlpirim ^ arabu^ tini nn i^u mfii mm Iptnm uco &9 Inn?. jRon rffitianf mania glo xa mpioanmmu^uoratfsunuirnn inuiDtmts. ffratrra: ^ fi poaupat9&i mt bomo f aliquo tdida-uoa q ^in acccpto urtbo umtatieg malcarCha t)uiurmotii mftcuitcf Ipi thtmiti&fit.iliosraUau nm Imitanarronfittcaa tripm nn m muprma.^itEt altm" anrta poitatr: ^ fir afiimplrbina Irge ttifti. jHa fi q'a mOimat k aliquiD rflc cu nirt]il fit: lprfr ftcmm. iDpne aumu fuujibrc unufquifq;: "i fit in (imimpo tatu gto na )fab!bit:i no f altcro.Bnufqupiqt mim onua fuu panabit. lEomunior aut bifa qui mttjr^at ocrbo: n qui tta uobia tc pat a ft tartimsatinommte bourn. iRoli firo paicr note: rt Uno itirfu mfto. tr marr. iDr^ no imUrtur. iDut rmm Dr^ rt para Dnnioan ilrfu frimuaumi tjomo: t?rr rt nmct.inm m&qbiuQijnrnootoi
-^'
J. New Testament from a 42-line Bible: beginning of Epistola ad Ephesios. Lambeth Palace, MS. 15 the beginning ofthe argumentum as the printer intended when he allotted more space for an initial to the former. The six-line initials were found only at the beginning of books. The argumentum of each book is marked by an initial in a different technique, not at all connected with the border system. The 'E' is executed in gold filled with red and placed on a blue square; originally, the blue and red showed white and yellow tendrils which are now almost invisible. Thus, the layout throughout the Bible was designed with special provisions for prologues and argumenta; the whole system therefore was structured in a strict hierarchy. ^^ This is not the only difference in the layout: rubrics and running titles are not all of the same kind either. The leaf in the British Library shows the normal procedure: in accordance with their name in Latin, the rubricae are written in red ink only, whereas in the Lambeth copy blue one-line initials for the beginning of sentences or single words add another decorative element. In this copy indications are more explicit; not only the number but also the abbreviation V^.' marks the chapters; and whereas the Lambeth rubrics closely follow the text ofthe printed tabula rubricarum,^^ the version on the single leaf omits one explicit and calls the argumentum ''prologus\ The running title ofthe leaf in the British Library reveals also a more economical attitude (figs, i, 2), since it is omitted on the page with a major change-over of text, where the reader could conveniently read the rubrics for the new text instead of a running title. In the Lambeth copy the red script is quite nicely integrated in the border decoration which leaves little space for a running title. Some of the characteristics mentioned here also influence the stylistic appearance. The rubrics ofthe British Library leaf end before the lines are properly filled, and the initial ofthe prologue is inconsistent with the rest ofthe painted decoration, whereas the layout ofthe Lambeth copy looks much better organized. The relations between letters and bars in the borders are clearer. Foliate fillings toy with the body of the initial in a quite sophisticated way, creeping round it. The borders follow a shorter, denser rhythm which makes it easier to see them as systems of green dots around regular ink spirals with a very regular sequence of bigger leaves in full colour. The fact that blue is used continuously together with just one varying second colour (red or green) shows the sense of order ofthe Lambeth illuminator. This artist was obviously a very tidy man, but also a bit timid compared with his colleague, whose design looks less solid, but, in the widespread borders, more generous and sometimes even daring. The differences show two different temperaments; therefore the illumination of these two copies of the 42-line Bible could be attributed to different hands. However, those discrepancies could also be explained in terms of diligence, cost, and pretension. All we know about illuminators and their customers in the fifteenth century shows that work was carried out according to certain scales of payment, different kinds and sizes of decoration being paid for at different rates. The most progressive 'style' of initials and border design was generally the most expensive; therefore it was only rarely applied, and only for the major incipits. Bills distinguish clearly between classes of decoration and specify the number and quality of items executed.^^ The leaf in the British Library shows a less costly version of illuminating a 42-line Bible than the volume in Lambeth Palace. We may surmise that nearly half the major initials were done in the cheaper style; borders were used only for those pages where a new book started, but not for prologues. The number of running titles is reduced; the more
38 expensive blue initials for these headings and for the rubrics do not appear. Finally, the work is executed with less care, a feature perhaps pleasing today because it creates a less stiff impression than the careful treatment found in the Lambeth volume. The surviving volume ofthe Lambeth Bible shows that it must have been one ofthe most spectacular and sumptuous of all the copies ofthe Gutenberg Bible. In order to make the printed book look like a manuscript, black ruling was applied to all pages to indicate forty-three lines,^^ the first and last two and the vertical lines intruding into the outer margins. This ruling, technically absurd, occurs in a small number of preciously illuminated incunables^"^ at a considerable extra expense for the customer. Two versions of a common style of illumination are preserved in the remnants of two Gutenberg Bibles. The Lambeth copy was conceived as a very splendid, perhaps over- ornate book which tried to disguise itself as a manuscript. The other copy, for which the single leaf in the British Library is the only witness, was less extravagant and less pretentious. These stylistic differences should not be overemphasized, however. Com- pared with any other Gutenberg Bible both copies together form a very closely related group, and even the British Library leaf figures among the most precious and most lavish examples of illumination ofthe Gutenberg Bible. The Lambeth copy, then already in its present imperfect state, formed part of the collection of Richard Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury and Chancellor of Oxford University (1544-1610). His collection of books formed the basis for Lambeth Palace Library. Therefore the incunable was in England by about 1600, at the latest, but an inscription in an early sixteenth-century hand on fol. 30 (fig. 4) tells of a certain John Reue and a certain Richard whose identities are not revealed. Their names point to an early English provenance. ^^ Schwenke did not quote references when he called the style of illumination 'English'.^*^ But there is no doubt that he was right. In general terms, all the stylistical features of what remains ofthe two Gutenberg Bibles are typical for English illumination ofthe fifteenth century. They differ from Continental products in such a distinct way that one would never confuse them with something not painted in the British Isles, even if certain parallels might be quoted from the Low Countries. But design, colour, and structure are English. The only problem is: where do the two Gutenberg Bibles fit into the history of English illumination? Research has concentrated mostly on the origin ofthe style, on the Carmelite Missal of the late fourteenth century, and on illuminators identifiable as Hermann Scheere, John Siferwas, and others, all active in the first decades of the fifteenth century. -^^ The years around 1450 did not favour splendid works; the bulk of production is obviously run ofthe mill. Typical research dealing with that period concerns very specific questions like an exciting model book investigated by Janet Backhouse,^^ or the distribution of work and the relation to customers of a rather simple workshop studied by Kathleen Scott. ^^ Only one artist's name from this period has become prominent, that of William Abell, who was paid for the decoration of the Consolidation Charter of Eton College in 1447/8 and can be identified as a citizen of London in 1452/3, 1459, and 1469/70. His work has recently been studied by Jonathan Alexander. ^° Yet, as Janet Backhouse has stated in ih\sjournal some years ago, 'so much work has yet to be done on manuscripts illuminated in England at the end ofthe Middle Ages. Border
39 Fig. 4. New Testament from a 42-line Bible, fol. 30: marginal inscription: 'John reue saruant to Richard [reue?]'. Lambeth Palace, MS. 15
decoration of this period is very conservative; many of the elements to be seen in these sketches are already current as early as the second decade of the century and are still in vogue as late as the 1490s.'^^ The border decoration of both illuminated Gutenberg Bibles fits this description very well. It is impossible to attribute them to specific workshops as they do not show more than just the conventional acanthus decoration of English illuminators of the time. There is not a single owl to identify the works as done by the 'owl painter* whose name was created by Kathleen Scott,^- nor are there any figures which point to William Abell. However, one might ask whether Abell (to take the named scribe as an example) really did the borders in all manuscripts attributed to him, because they differ considerably. There is a possibility that border painting was a skill on its own, at least for certain highly specialized people. Kathleen Scott realized that borders in certain manuscripts were done in two phases: in a Book of Hours now in the British Library, MS. Harley 2887, borders of the type employed in the two Gutenberg Bibles were painted first with open spaces to be filled later with more intricate natural motives (fig. 5).^^ A manuscript of D^ Re Military B.L., MS. Royal 18 A XII, with the arms of Anne Neville, Richard Ill's Queen, is decorated in a similar way."^ The pure English style appears in numerous examples, but without the flowers, plants, and animals introduced under foreign influence. It was fully developed in manuscripts like the Hours of'Elizabeth ye Queene', B.L., Add. MS. 50001 executed about 1420 fig. 6).^^ An example very close to the Lambeth copy of the Gutenberg Bible is the Psalter and Hours of Henry Beauchamp Duke of Warwick, executed between 1439 and 1446, now in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York, which has been partly attributed to William
40 .- iX :a
\. •*. :v 'kW r^
lie:
If juaufl giljJmm•2^tft tmim %- mtBlmm m^om\jm\$ fmm$ in
Mmaqimmmmmm otmtaK tmt>{i aitmitum monm w ifcfmiUia^mmMkiimtm j-zr-r- m i^"^'-^' I
•f^ ~-^^ -liaflW wiV ti^ /
'i»
"*: '^/ B
^. 5. Book of Hours, fol. 29: Annunciation. MS. Harley 2887 5 H g S S
:^'^^_;2| IE mPii^B It is not self-evident where the borders of the two Gutenberg Bibles were executed. Similar work appears together with miniatures of William Abell. This illuminator probably hved in London not only in the few years when he can be traced there, but also during the time in between, that is from 1452 to at least 1469. The obvious London connection of another work with similar (but anonymous) illumination, the Missal of Sarum use dedicated in January 1446 by William Melreth, Alderman of London, to the church of St. Lawrence in the old Jewry (B.L., MS. Arundel 109: fig. 7),^'' also suggest that London was the place of origin. The same is true for the stylistic group of the so-called *owl painter' (see fig. 5).-*^ When Gutenberg Bibles were shipped to England they arrived most probably in the port of London, and it seems quite reasonable to assume that they were illuminated in London. The fact that at least two vellum copies of the Gutenberg Bible were illuminated in England makes it quite likely that they were sold to England not long after they left the printing house. Unfortunately, Schwenke's suggestion that a third Gutenberg Bible was illuminated in the British Isles is unfounded. He assumed in the Ergdnzungsband (ig2;^)., no. 27, p. 14, that the copy in the National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, had Scottish decoration and he was followed in this by Norman (op. cit., p. 106), who is otherwise silent about places of origin. Vaassen (art. cit., col. 1178 note), confusing England and Scotland, adopted this view. I did the same, before I examined the original, in Kommentarband (1979), pp. 93 ff. Now I wonder whether the illumination could have been executed in Erfurt. The copy might have gone to the British Isles at a fairly early date from the 'Schottenstift' of St. James in Erfurt, originally an Irish foundation until it became Scottish in the modern sense when it was taken over by a Scottish abbot in 1518. The book was presented to the National Library of Scotland in 1781.^^ Dragons and towers, motifs quite unusual in fifteenth-century illumination, and a general impression of an outmoded and sober style might have misled us all to a more or less romantic association with Scotland (fig. 8). These findings lead to one further consideration. The fact that we can identify centres for decoration of those earliest incunables shows that when they were sold they were merely printed in black (and a little red, as we know);'*^ they left the printing house unfinished, not ready for use since they still needed handwritten rubrics and handmade initial letters. The fact that two of them are preserved in English guise might be due to mere chance. But it is highly improbable that there were two individuals from the British Isles who ordered independently unfinished copies of the first printed book in Mainz—to be shipped down the River Rhine and overseas to England. As both books probably went through London workshops which did very similar work, my guess is that there was someone who master-minded the acquisition and illumination of both Bibles. The same is true of other groups of illuminated Gutenberg Bibles, 'hand-finished' in centres far from Mainz, such as Bruges and Leipzig."^* Thus, the fact that two Gutenberg Bibles were illuminated in England gives a new insight into the early history of the trade in printed books. For the history of books in the British Isles this pair of Gutenberg Bibles is in fact rather
43 rrimiimm n
iiiiinniriimi?r
nm. mm qiii tiam naim ou AiiDiflilniii ijomn fmiurim nus. ramr. Ml riujifl.l j 5iuimi muUi. oinruii mif mna nu* ftinf iiomiiu tmuni a
ntuuilmimaimlQ in olo % iitimr. an uiis in oa mm nm 'AgiigiiiR.m[Tnfirinimaiu mk-
.T^^nummi mOnrirmmimu pg gilnni Cuwiitrnm eftnpmw.tropan iiotiifl qm ^l^ iiUt tufl ttfomtntofl m V i9a:mnuiui!!la6fl aiiDir xmk pjptjmc Hums: tt fmmrra qur m m frapta Omr. pplom nymn orioiiB qiir Oinf nt : grnoa m\$ (tpaf aH fo qiu drtrqiu rmrtrqui mmmf ^ m ^0 qm dtnOm fimos pnujgmi "- * «ujmKiivmpjiff|B ^
. 7. Missal of William Melreth, Alderman of London, before 1446. MS. Arundel 109, fol. 207 recto intdtigetrnaturam. Ipur in noe pri^ ntumrcquitl*Drf|intinquirira uolu^ muo agnofd ^bmtte m^ tamniorqnoniaijuiplatatFt^nflataiiil t Iiilaimbie*[mccamu in ifta^ ancn^- unufunt:quiaOtimctmrntuprtSat fminim ramrm Ituim ad httm m&t Hmottt. mwriii0.ruangclm in Italia fcriprin nftmtos in ca qnifi n gmtri fun Df bttrt 1 rtifej. jflam iniciu prinripij in rut rttiptum fft in rfffl'a jibtta noit jp^Kia f|damationi0 inftttucs nrirtoangtlumniamtfatinn tuam: otDitmii Inmicc rltdinnio otedit: qui prrparabit uia tua antt tt. (U or ut pfiimna prrtttflinatu iolianmi 6 ttamatis m uriora. paratr ma Dili: lium ^ac^rif in uore agrii anunrian ^- ^.^ ndao faritt Cnnitas tine. jfuit in Hv tio mnflumrno folu mtbu cantnn fa '^ ^ yftrto iotpnnro bapn=ane tt pDitano ^ra fca tr roipuo Ooinini in omiiia ^ bnpnruiu ptnitmnt: m mmfftonnu prt ixrbu Diunif uono ammatum-in ft rgrcOirtHtiic aU tu omiD
Fig. 8a. National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, Inc. i, II, fol. 207 recto
autnn.iTbronuD mus Dr" in ftculunt tohiuirgarquicanBUirga rcgniruf. pp p ^ilfri&i iu&itiatt DUifti miqramu: uQ I bat tpFa frnbmoo no frcuaumt proprrcca unm tt tjrue amo muo 0 niotfin fuuuit url uocabulil nommi^ Iro r^ultationm prr parnnpilB mis. fuiurlDiDiuiBGtfmbrrccDianitatcin. jftmmpnnnpm tint terra funtn&i: Bjcc rauFa tCt rr aO roe fccitcs q Vi nr^ rt opta manuu niaaini funt tcb.ilpi tuimfiont ctcamrtaiu fjfi gmnu ap^ ircibunctuaiitfptnanrbia:^ omnra ftoliis 1 no ttbrcouifnrnGqiioqi rau uturftinimruurrccafmu. frurlut a fugbiam-futiq^ liumiluarcipf Dtnio miihimmutabio toe^ mutabutun acaommtu offirgfui noluir ntfftrrc. ni aurcm itinn ipfr ra:^ nnm tui non iRafninlimoDo m.uobiiiico aplus Crfitirnr. (flDqucaiitflngtiorum Di proptcc buinilitarc m rpfa fua nomc Eit alinniiCD ft&f a DfFtno mno: quo= fuuraDErafbnrnoptulit.fliamrrga aQiifni ponajnimicoo ruoG fcabfllu rpramfaruiMpftol''iiGt]cbrrao ran liOu mou; Iflaiu ouir^'hu jminito fmpra btbraira Imfritn mifilTr :cuiuc ram fpiut^if miutftcml uiifTi propra
Fig. 8b. National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, Inc. i, II, fol. 280 recto spectacular: there are no written sources for early fascination with the new art of printing in England. King Charles VII of France is reported to have been the first prince aware of what had happened in Mainz. His ordonnance of 4 October 1458 tells ofhis sending Nicolas Jenson to the town of the invention in order to 'entendre concevoir et apprandre Lart dicelle'."*^^ But there is no proof that copies of the first printed book went to France; the earliest incunables which positively arrived in Paris were copies of the Durandus of 1459.*^ In England written sources are silent, but illumination tells a story of its own. Several scholars in England have dealt with the history of the importation of incunahles from the Continent before Caxton founded the first printing house in Westminster.'*^ In 1979 Elizabeth Armstrong summarized the state of knowledge in an admirable article.''^^ She then believed that the printers of Mainz 'had markets nearer at hand and more familiar to them' and did not export *their books to England as soon as they had achieved production on a commercial scale'.'^^ The first acquisition of a printed book reported by Elizabeth Armstrong is that of the same Durandus mentioned above, a copy of which was bought by James Goldwell, Dean of Salisbury, afterwards Bishop of Norwich, in the autumn of 1465 — not in Mainz but in the city of Hamburg."^'' The first commercial importation of printed books in the port of London is reported as late as 1477.'^^ Elizabeth Armstrong used written sources, that have survived often in a haphazard manner. In an unpublished lecture given to the Bibliographical Society, London, in March 1981, Lotte Hellinga suggested 'that in this connection insufficient use has been made so far of other less direct sources of information'. But at that time she did not yet include illumination as one of those sources, probably because, up to now, not a single incunable has been studied in the context of English illumination of the Late Middle Ages."*^^ In our world of increasing specialization it might seem strange that an art historian should intrude into the domain of incunabulists; but if we could all join forces from our small fields of specialization we might really arrive at some better knowledge of how things happened. Perhaps a real expert of English illumination will succeed in identifying the illuminator of the two Gutenberg Bibles shipped to England in the 1450s and transformed into English-looking 'manuscripts' (fig. 9).^°
This paper is part of research on the illumination of Marguerite d'Orleans, 'discovered' but never the first printed Bible, undertaken with the aid of the published by an assistant of the late Millard Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. It was prompted Meiss—we could not find anything of this style. by a visit to London in March 1982 on the occasion of 2 Catalogue of Books Printed in the XVth Century the symposium on Manuscripts after the invention of now in the British Museum {BMC)., where the leaf printing at the Warburg Institute. I am grateful to was not mentioned. At the time the policy of Janet Backhouse, and also to Margaret Nickson and A. W. Pollard, the editor of BMC i, was not to Lotte Hellinga for revising my text for publication in include fragments or single leaves. Pollard had English. probably recognized the leaf for what it was after I In the autumn of 1971 Janet Backhouse accom- it was transferred to the Department of Printed panied me to the shelves to look for an illuminated Books, in view of his interest in John Bagford. manuscript with miniatures of the Master of 3 Seymour deRicci, Catalogue raisonn^despremieres mmplttaur: btqt paulue tofumma^ tione ainBaliaa adib5 tartt* qu! biu pouui&tut^ufqta&tan ; « toaa&imulil irtaltittamc Him EitgiT tti'firuitaalmafmtainunr: - &t. iDuoD tt itgnmlD at rtquittmuQ &tu •ttfipttltiigulat|pttiirianobi8 r&pmagiiua n quatum annoru t. milt autattrdmB tamf q) oprtattm agticala apoittat br fma foidibuo v Ota • uirauim^ publica nmo&tamn: nt no ta ooltntib) tm tmio&tare mtc- > mitaliazfandamOigantt Iptrim m^ « ud£a&iOunttbu8 pnmimfic. «T - .'^ -^ atHatrpamtotpt fmpfic tuangcltu: - \-plmt jjfcino ^impit magrhu < *^ ^^ ri^nibranattiaiptinprinapioantt-t 5 frtjTu lumm piotinniii ip'ms' **' ^m\ TnilaliatO&bttmpta.lEiucEcrataq^ ' tiinMrnfln^li !T'<^' omotuaQdiirDiTpoImoniQt^iotat- q /^-w ^' ^ tamfQamcmaflttaBlaboriahiit:ut [noti fut atbfnarr nar^ primu gtma tsaifto omni^tjttan catbnteqinnbiBtani' V on(titmutiintani!&ntti|Eh mani& tmlutre^-btutttapi fiata ^umanitaic urhdiaine Eabnlt^;i| [imitnabiBqabtmda attcmi: in foto ifQia lu&Orno tcntcf- imimut*ttmim&n nuf: mt nt brtctitiB £abntia tt Mm fiittutMoniBnitiu! tt nddn afimitq fplintflflBnite u&uiti tinmcrnt a ut^ oima a pritipio iifli Qcixt r| 0^ ttbi litatr ttaboratct:&tt)int*nr m pruid^ fttiittt optit tutaptiilr I nt connofQfl pio tuanQttif iotfania natiuimtc jpxt^ * tttqb^miliit^tainuaif. rumpta-tuitumiJadiumrmbttttrtht ~, quotWfodmtnducaittztdtt&aBf ?^ giaiutccrattttoaqtnlBm nomine =ad|ariim to Di bus aimm: tt namtn tiua ttisabnti. npnntt a piutpio itatiuhattB lEtant auttm infii amba amcbnim: tnttfttntce in omnibue inan&a&ei v: iufitbtotiambna Homira iinE qmtr^ tat prcnattjan fm tau&t incosuu iX'; la. j& non scat iilia &l^a • to ip Ef» tutantiD t mu gcnna nonie mra^o^ &t t(i=abttt| RtdliBiet ambo prnof' inOUtiarabilte tn pDiciQ in trtmni I fiOmt f bidB iuta.if adO rft am tu la mtmiofunontmr^i ep ntninarntantrimi:antr Oru: ]CctiBi lobittuOi tmntndbuB net pbcbat in aiSo. ntmrarttOotijroattpit ut manfinn bm nan innntmo rtia Goibfaontm pottmt mgtd&ia in tmtptu ttnmim. p iEtoiiiianiulticu&odf&oflidRatocaafoo Danumtt Qro in \sm plnm tt Ufa spi na If tn^ inttnTu^ipaniit outan tUi nanio t|timta> araninr ab nQilua iim:fiana a&tERiQ altatin
Fig. g. New Testament from a 42-line Bible, fol. 28 verso: beginning ofthe Gospel according to St. Luke. Lambeth Palace, MS. 15 impressions de Mayence. Verqffentlichungen der (pp. 51-5 below), on the provenance of the Gutenberg-Gesellsckaft, viii-ix (Mainz, 1911), leaf no. 56. 11 Severin Corsten has tried to revive Dziatzko's 4 Paul Schwenke, Johannes Gutenbergs 42zeilige idea that the 42-Iine Bible might have been Bibel. Erganzungsband zur Faksimile-Ausgabe printed in 1452 and 1453 and finished at the (Leipzig, 1923), no. 67, p. 21, referred to below as beginning of 1454, in his contribution to the *" Erganzungsband {n)zi,y. Kommentarband (1979): 'Die Drucklegung der 5 Don Qeveland Norman, The $ooth Anniversary 42zeiligen Bibel. Technische und chronologische Pictorial Census of the Gutenberg Bible., with Probleme', pp. 34-67, especially p. 58. Tradi- introduction by Aloys Ruppel (Chicago, 1961), tionally the date of the Helmaspergisches PP- 255-8. Notariatsinstrument of 6 Nov. 1455, and the dates 6 Alfred William Pollard, *A Rough List of the indicated by the illuminator, rubricator, and Contents of the Bagford Collection', Biblio- binder Heinrich Albch alias Cremer, Vicar of St. graphical Society Transactions., \n (1902-4), Stephen in Mainz, in a copy at the Bibliotheque PP- 23-39> especially p. 39. NationaleinParis(i5and24 Aug. 1456) are used 7 Cf. note 4. to place the date of issue of the Bible in the first 8 For general bibliography and the state of research months of 1456. up to about 1970 see Hans Widmann (ed.), Der 12 Chronicles rarely fail to include him; his tomb at gegenwdrtige Stand der Gutenberg-Forschung. St. Albans was well known; he had entered the Bibliothek des BuchwesenSy i (Stuttgart, 1972). Shakespeare canon, and a lost play with the title Problems concerning the 42-Iine Bible are newly Duke Humphrey (performed c.1591-1616, and discussed and summed up in Wieland Schmidt sometimes ascribed to Shakespeare) is listed in and Friedrich Adolph Schmidt-Kiinsemiiller A. Harbage, Annals of English Drama gj^-ijoo {e.d.)^ Johannes Gutenbergs 42zeiHge Btbel: Kom- . . . revised by S. Schoenbaum (London, 1964), mentarband (Munich, 1979), referred to below p. 102. as 'Kommentarband (1979)'. New attention will 13 Cf my forthcoming article in Gutenberg-Jahrbuch be drawn to these problems in the 1983 issue of ig8j dealing with the reintegration ofthe leaves the Gutenberg-Jahrbuch; cf Peter Amelung, from a Gutenberg Bible now in the Museum 'MutmaBungen uber Gutenberg', Aus dem Meermanno-Westreenianum in The Hague Antiquariat., xii (1981) pp. A509-14. The term (Schwenke no. 63), into the copy in the Bodmer 'Gutenberg Bible' is somewhat ambiguous as Foundation in Cologny, near Geneva (Schwenke there is a good argument to attribute the 36-line no. 17—for the later history ofthis copy see Ilona Bible of Bamberg f.1460, that is, the second Hubay, 'Die bekannten Exemplare der42zeiligen printed Bible, to the inventor as well; cf George Bibel und ihre Besitzer', Kommentarband(i^'jg), D. Painter, 'Gutenberg and the B 36 Group', pp. 127-55, no. 30). D. E. Rhodes (ed.). Essays in Honour of Victor 14 Norman, unfortunately, quotes almost exclu- Scholderer {M.zmz^ 1970), pp. 292-322. sively fragments taken from the two paper copies 9 In general, only the frontispieces to the two dismembered during this century by New York volumes of the book, the beginning of Genesis, booksellers (see note 5). Schwenke's survey of and sometimes the beginning of the New fragments is more informative in this respect. Testament, have occasionally been decorated in a Among his numbers 54 to 85 there are only nine more elaborate way. It is therefore fortunate that paper fragments; cf Schwenke, Erganzungsband the single leaf shows all typical features of the (1923), pp. 20-2. handmade work in the lost copy—apart from the 15 Cf. for instance the copy in Gottingen with the four pages mentioned above which might have indication on H, fol. 134: 'hie continuetur in shown figurative elements. For the method of refectorio', quoted by Schwenke, no. 5, p. 8, and describing the layout and its interpretation by by Hubay in Kommentarband (1979), no. 2, the illuminators see Eberhard Konig, 'Die P- 133- Illuminierung der Gutenbergbibel', Kommentar- 16 This may be proved by the preponderance of band{ig-jg), pp. 69-125, especially pp. 83-9 with monastic provenances and also by some textual illustrations. interpolations. This can be corroborated by the 10 See Margaret Nickson, 'Bagford and Sloane' illumination often connected with leading reform monasteries. For this see my forthcoming article to identify 'Richard' with the first known owner, in Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 1983. Richard Bancroft. 17 This is true for myself, too. After having pub- 26 The first survey of locations of illuminated lished a preliminary view of attributions in 1979, Gutenberg Bibles does not mention the Lambeth I have to revise several opinions communicated copy: Rudolf Stowesand, 'Seltenere Themen der there. Gutenbergforschung', Archiv fur Geschichte des 18 Schwenkt^ Ergdnzungsband (igi'i), p. 21. For the Buchwesens, i (1958), pp. 129-34, especially Lambeth copy (Schwenke 31) see Hubay, Kom~ pp. 130-2. Elgin Vaassen quotes Scbwenke's mentarband (1979), no. 20 and illustrations in localization in her article 'Die Werkstatt der Norman, op. cit., no. 27, figs. 143, 145 f Mainzer Riesenbibel in Wiirzburg', Archiv fiir 19 The full system is applied mostly in liturgical Geschichte des Buchwesens, xiii (1973), cols. 1121- books as in the Psalter and Hours of Henry 428, especially cols. 1176-84. The first attempt to Beauchamp, New York, Pierpont Morgan integrate the leaf in the British Library was made Library, M.893; see colour plates 38 and 39 by me, and was based on Schwenke's observation in Richard Marks and Nigel Morgan, Gothic in Kommentarband(ig-jg), p. 93. Illumination in England (New York and London, 27 For the general history of English illumination 1979)- see Eric G. Millar, English Illuminated Manu- 20 The term 'hierarchy of decoration' has been scripts ofthe XlVth and XVth Centuries (Paris, developed by the late L. M. J. Delaisse, and has 1928); Margaret Rickert, Painting in Britain: been adopted by myself when discussing incun- The Middle Ages (Harmondsworth, 1954); and ables in Kommentarband (igjg). For an expose of Richard Marks and Nigel Morgan, op. cit. the whole phenomenon see the forthcoming 28 British Library, MS. Sloane 1448A; see Janet article of James Douglas Farquhar and Eberhard Backhouse, 'An Illuminator's Sketchbook', The Konig, 'A Tabular System for Describing British Library Journal., i (1975), pp. 3-14. Medieval Manuscripts', Viator (1982). 29 Kathleen E. Scott, 'A Mid-i5th Century English 21 See the splendid facsimile reproductions in Kom- Illuminating Shop and its Customer', Jo«r«a/ of mentarband (1979); also Wieland Schmidt, 'Zur the Warburg and Gourtauld Institutes, xxxi(i968), Tabula Rubricarum', ibid., pp. 177-83. pp. 170-96. 22 Cf for instance a pay record of 1450 in Brussels, 30 Jonathan J. G. Alexander, 'William Abell Archives generales, Fonds de la chambre des "lymnour" and 15th Century English Illumina- comptes du due de Bourgogne, Reg. no. 1925, tion', Kunsthistorische Forschungen Otto Pdcht fols. 47^ and 454, in which a payment to Simon zu seinem jo. Geburtstag (Wien, 1973), pp. Marmion for work on a Breviary is specified 166-72. (published and discussed at length by Sandra 31 J. Backhouse, art. cit., p. 3. Hindman, 'The Case of Simon Marmion: Attribu- 32 K. Scott, art. cit.; the term was adopted by tions & Documents', Zeitschrift fiir Kunst- J. Backhouse, art. cit., p. 9. geschichte^ xl (1978), pp. 185-204, especially 33 K. Scott, art. cit., pi. 62 and p. 173. pp. 199-202). 34 Pamela Tudor Craig, Richard III (London, 23 The forty-two lines of printing need a forty-third [1973]), no. 131, p. 57 and pi. 11; the manuscript line of ruling, to resemble handwritten script. dates from 1483-5. 24 There are, for instance, the two 42-line Bibles 35 Henry Yates Thompson, Illustrations of One illuminated in Bruges (the vellum copy of the Hundred Manuscripts in the Library of Henry Pierpont Morgan Library and the copy of the Yates Thompson, IV: Sixteen Manuscripts of Buchmuseum in Leipzig, lost after the Second English Origin from the Xllth to the XVth World War), both reworked considerably in the Centuries (London, 1914), pis. 60-70. See also nineteenth century. Cf Konig in Kommentarband R. Marks and N. Morgan, op. cit., pi. 36. (1979), p. 92f, and Hubay, ibid., no. 37, p. 150 36 New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, M.893. andno. 48, p. 155. Attribution of all English miniatures to Abell by 25 The inscription 'John' mentioned by Schwenke Jonathan Alexander, op. cit.; a different view is in Ergdnzungsband (1923), no. 31, p. 15, is not expressed by R. Marks and N. Morgan, op. cit., recorded in Hubay's entry in Kommentarband with reproductions of pages judged to be by a (1979), no. 20, p. 143. The script seems too early different hand: plates 38 ff, p. 114. If they are right the borders have been painted by a third Invention of Printing on the Development of hand working all through the manuscript. German Illumination', which will appear in J. B. 37 J. A. Herbert, Schools of Illumination. Reproduc- Trapp (ed.). Manuscripts after the Invention of tions from Manuscripts in the British Museum., Part Printing. Proceedings of a symposium held at IV: English A.D. ij^o to 1500 (London, 1922), the Warburg Institute (London, 1983). pL 15 and p. 9. 42 The document quoted is the first to mention 38 K. Scott, art. cit.., p. 194. 'Jehan Guthenberg' as the inventor of printing 39 The monasteries known in Germany as 'Schot- (Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS. franc. 5524, fois. 152^- tenkloster' because they had originally been 153), in a copy from the time of Henri II founded and occupied by Irish monks ('Scoti'), (1547-59), see Alfred Swierk, 'Johannes Guten- were in a state of decline by the fifteenth century. berg als Erfinder in Zeugnissen seiner Zeit', Der All links with Ireland had been gradually broken gegenwdrtige Stand der Gutenberg-Forschung and some of these houses had passed into (Stuttgart, 1972), pp. 79-90, especially, p. 80. German hands or had ceased to exist. A few, 43 The copy in Paris (Bibl. Nat., Res. Velins 126) however, were taken over in the early sixteenth was owned by a canon of St.-Andre-des-Arts at century by Scottish monks who continued to least as early as 1472: see Albert Labarre, 'Un maintain close ties with Scotland and in this way atelier Mayenfais d'enluminure vers 1450-1500', they became 'Schottenkloster' in a sense which Revue franqaise d^histoire du livre (1974), pp. accords with modern usage. The chief of these 3-10, especially p. 7 note 6. The copies of the 48- was the abbey of St. James in Regensburg, where., line Bible of 1462 in the Bibliotheque de l'Arsenal for example, Ninian Winzet, the confessor of in Paris may reveal that a part of that edition was Mary, Queen of Scots, was abbot from 1577 to sold to France to be illuminated in places like 1592; the next in importance was the abbey of St. Paris and even Angers. James in Erfurt. A short account by M. Dilworth 44 Cf. most recently Lotte Hellinga, Caxton in of the history of these houses is included as Focus. The Beginning of Printing in England Appendix II in Ian B. Cowan and David E. (London, 1982), pp. 100-2. Easson, Medieval Religious Houses: Scotland, 2nd 45 Elizabeth Armstrong, 'English Purchases of edn. (London, 1976) pp. 240-4. See also M. Printed Books from the Continent 1465-1526', Dilworth, 'The Schottenkloster at the Reforma- The English Historical Review^ xciv (1979), tion', in David McRoberts (ed.), Essays on pp. 268-90. the Scottish Reformation, '5i3''i(>25 (Glasgow, 46 Ibid., p. 268. 1962), pp. 241-4; L. Hammermayer, 'Deutsche 47 According to an inscription in the copy given to Schottenkloster, schottische Reformation, All Souls College, Oxford, in 1498 and still katholische Reformation und Gegenreformation preserved there; see N. R. Ker, Records of All in West- und Mitteleuropa', Zeitschrift fur Souls Library (Oxford, 1971), p- 162, quoted by Bayerische Landesgeschichte, xxvi (1963), pp. E. Armstrong, art. cit., p. 268, and note 3. D. E. 131-255- Rhodes, A Catalogue of Incunabula in all the 40 The printing of the 42-Iine Bible started with the Libraries of Oxford University outside the Bodleian plan to print rubrics in red, which has been done (Oxford, 1982), no. 722. on I. r, I. 4, I. 5, and I. 129. Unfortunately, 48 The earliest record of importation of books is a Severin Corsten was misled by one of my box of books, entered in 1477 in the extant reproductions in Kommentarband (1979), when Customs Rolls of the Port of London, cf he assumed that there had been red printing on E. Armstrong, art. cit., p. 273. II. I as well; see his article 'Eine weitere 49 Lotte Hellinga kindly communicated the text of gedruckte Rubrik in der 42zeiligen Bibel', her lecture to me. Gutenberg-Jahrbuch igSi., pp. 136-8, with correc- 50 The Lambeth copy is the only 42-line copy still tion slip. The page reproduced by me in 1979 was registered as a manuscript, as 'MS. 15' according a facsimile with the rubrics in the Bible type after to the catalogue of the Archiepiscopal Library; the lost original, formerly in the Buchmuseum in see J. D. Carlyle and H. J. Todd, A Catalogue of Leipzig. the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth Palace 41 Cf. my forthcoming article 'The influence of the (London, 1812), p. 3.