1
Introduction
Medieval manuscripts survive in varying degrees of completeness. This is a study of the most vestigial survivors of medieval manuscript culture, the leaves from books which were dismembered during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and re-used to strengthen the bindings of early modern books. The focus of the study will be the fragments of medieval manuscripts preserved in a specific collection of books that belong to Ripon Cathedral Library. The aim of the study is to investigate the history of the fragments, using an appropriate methodology to hypothesise (if not establish) which manuscripts they were disbound from, and in which printed books they were recycled in the cases where they are no longer preserved in situ.
The books of Ripon Cathedral Library have been held on long-term deposit in the
Brotherton Library at Leeds University since 1980. The library of Ripon Cathedral was founded at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The nucleus of its collection was the bequest of Anthony Higgin, Dean of Ripon Cathedral.1 The physical components of this remarkable collection of early printed books reveal a hidden library of fragments that were once leaves of medieval manuscripts before being used as pastedowns and binding strips to strengthen the bindings. Since a nameless visitor to Ripon Cathedral started sorting and identifying the fragments in the 1920s, much work has been carried out, but much remains to be done. This dissertation will contribute to our understanding of the fragments by focusing on their relationship with the bindings in which they have been preserved. Determining the provenance of a binding and of an isolated scrap of text is far from straightforward, and the problems and challenges of identifying and interpreting fragments will be explored in a series of case studies. These case studies will be accompanied by an overview of the collection to provide context and data to sustain
1 Mortimer, Jean E., ‘The Library Catalogue of Anthony Higgin, Dean of Ripon (1608-1624)’, Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society: Literary and Historical Section, 10 (1962), 1-75 (p. 2). 2 future directions of research. Being able to name previously unidentified texts where possible is one of the most common desired outcomes of research on manuscript fragments. However, even though it has not been possible to put a name to all of the fragments, the provision of a richer array of metadata in accordance with best practice in cataloguing this complex type of document will make the collection more useful and accessible to researchers interested in the afterlives of manuscripts, book binding history, and related fields.
The unifying factor of Ripon Cathedral Library is its founder, Anthony Higgin.
Born in Manchester, he went to St John's College, Cambridge, and became a fellow in
1574. He was ordained in Gloucester in 1572 but did not reside in a parish until he became rector of Kirk Deighton near Wetherby in 1583. He was appointed Dean of
Ripon in 1608 by James I, and held the office until his death in 1624. Jean Mortimer, a librarian at Leeds University, catalogued the collection during 1950s while it was still held at Ripon Cathedral, and in 1962, she published the catalogue that Anthony Higgin compiled of his theological works in 1624 shortly before his death.2 The catalogue contains 758 items, but the whole collection came to more than two thousand books in a wide variety of subjects in addition to theology: classical authors, law, medicine, and astronomy.3
Many of the books were signed by Higgin, and he often gave indications of their origin.4 There is much information that can be gleaned about the relationships that Higgin had with his relatives, fellow clergymen and scholars, in Cambridge, Manchester and
York. He obtained books from booksellers in Cambridge and later from York.5 Perusal of the catalogue reveals that most of the books were printed on the Continent, in Basel,
2 Mortimer, 'The Library Catalogue of Anthony Higgin'. 3 Mortimer, 'The Library Catalogue of Anthony Higgin'. 4 Mortimer, 'The Library Catalogue of Anthony Higgin', pp. 3-4. 5 Mortimer, 'The Library Catalogue of Anthony Higgin', p. 4. 3
Cologne, Paris, Lyon, Antwerp, Heidelberg, and other centres of production. Many of the books were bought from Cambridge booksellers, and fifty Cambridge bindings have been preserved, as well as many from Oxford and London, and Higgin also records books as having been bought from York booksellers.6 Unfortunately, although the collection is remarkable for containing such a high number of original bindings, a significant number of books have perished due to damp storage conditions within Ripon Cathedral Library.7
Some of the bindings of these perished books have been preserved, which will prove relevant to the project to catalogue the manuscript fragments.
Even if the factors that caused the collection of fragments to coalesce in this form appear random, considering these slices of evidence of social history sandwiched together incongruously is to analyse the layers of a palimpsest which was shaped by a combination of faith, technology and politics.
The literature written so far about the Ripon collection as a whole has focused on its collector, taking the inventory and evidence of use contained in the books as its starting point. The literature written about the fragments has focused on their textual contents in order to draw conclusions about the rate at which medieval manuscripts were dismantled during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This study seeks to draw the threads of previous research together.
One area of enquiry, which is not the main focus of the dissertation but underlines the importance of carrying out more research on Higgin's collection, is the light that the collection throws on the relationships that he had with his family, fellow scholars and fellow theologians through the various stages of his life in Cambridge and then in
Yorkshire. Higgin is not known to have published any work, but an avenue for future research lies in the sixteen manuscript notebooks in which he wrote, dating from the
6 Mortimer, 'The Library Catalogue of Anthony Higgin', p. 4 7 Mortimer, 'The Library Catalogue of Anthony Higgin', pp. 8-9. 4
1550s to 1617, and conserved at Leeds University Library.8 The notebooks illustrate the way in which Higgin made use of this collection to prepare sermons. They mirror his interests and may give some indication of his religious views; MS 22 contains summaries of 'contemporary controversial religious works.'9 Interestingly, many of the notebooks are also written in by more than one hand, which complements the evidence of collaborative scholarship, sharing and circulation of texts that is provided by the inscriptions in his collection of printed books.
Anthony Higgin was not building his collection in isolation, and many of his contemporaries were amassing similar collections. Two books in the collection were presented to Higgin by the celebrated Yorkshire book collector Henry Savile.10 The multi-volume series edited by R. J. Fehrenbach and E. S. Leedham Green, Private
Libraries in Renaissance England: a Collection and Catalogue of Tudor and Early
Stuart Book-Lists, contains hundreds of examples of personal libraries built up by scholars, clergy and others.11 Most of the examples of private collecting it describes are carried out by people who lived in or near London, Oxford and Cambridge, which is perhaps to be expected, but it certainly gives the impression that Higgin's ability to create his library was all the more remarkable given that he was relatively remote from most centres of book production in the later stages of his career. It also suggests that more attention should be paid to book collectors outside of the south and east of England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. To take one example of a near contemporary collector, David Pearson has published the list of books donated by
8 Leeds University Special Collections, Ripon Cathedral Library MSS 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40. 9 Leeds University, Library catalogue for Ripon Cathedral Library MS 22
Cambridge-educated clergyman Peter Shaw to Trinity College in 1603.12 Shaw studied at
Trinity College during the 1560s and he continued acquiring books all through his life;13 the collection of 140 volumes is twice the average size of a Cambridge scholar according to Sears Jayne,14 and described as one of the 'most substantial benefactions' received at the beginning of the seventeenth century by Trinity College Library.15 Again, seen in comparison with the average number of books owned by a Cambridge scholar, the size of
Higgin's collection of more than two thousand books collected over a fifty year period from the 1570s to the 1620s seems an impressive achievement.
Of course, Ripon Cathedral Library collection only began as a private collection, and it has been characterised by Andrew Cambers as both a personal and a public library.16 He points out that it was common for parish libraries to originate as bequests from donors who wished to perpetuate their religious identity through making such a gift,17 but it seems that the evidence of the lending out of Higgin's books during his lifetime showed that the Dean was already allowing it to be used if not as a public library, then as an amenity for those in his clerical circle. It is worth comparing the library to that of a far more significant figure than Higgin whose collection had known public significance, that of the celebrated Elizabethan scholar John Dee. The 1583 catalogue of lists three to four thousand books, with significant holdings in classical, medieval and
Renaissance learning, especially in the subjects of science and history, and it was regarded as one of the most important libraries in the land.18 Part of Dee's influence in
12 David Pearson, 'The Books of Peter Shaw in Trinity College, Cambridge', Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, vol. 9, pt. 1 (1986), 76-89. 13 Pearson, 'The Books of Peter Shaw'. 14 Sears Jayne, Library Catalogues of the English Renaissance, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1956), p. 14. 15 Pearson, 'The books of Peter Shaw', p. 76. 16 Andrew Cambers, Godly Reading: Print, Manuscript and Puritanism in England, 1580-1720, Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 139. 17 Cambers, Godly Reading, p. 123. 18 William Howard Sherman, John Dee: the Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995) p. 31. 6
Elizabethan learned society derived from his research collection. William Howard
Sherman argues that it was a “public amenity”19, and provides evidence that it was consulted by a wide range of scholars, explorers and members of the court.20 Higgin was certainly not a towering figure of the stature of Dee, but the large number of books that he accumulated had sufficient gravity to attract the attentions of numerous scholars and clergymen whose names and annotations are recorded the title pages.21
The historical, political and religious context that Higgin grew up in was torrid.
The collection that he built up shows that he was able to continue his scholarly enquiry after leaving Cambridge and it informed his religious practice. The presence of books on religious controversy does not of course indicate that he sided with those who held extreme protestant positions. During the Reformation and beyond, it was normal for religious people to follow the arguments of their opponents, one of the most pointed examples being the collection development policy of the Society of Friends, which dictated that the Society acquire two copies of each work produced by a Quaker, and one copy of any work by those who denounced them.22
Literature about the fragments
A. C. Cawley wrote about what has been described as the most significant discovery of the fragments; an excerpt from Mandeville's Travels.23 Although the fragment itself is described, the brief article concentrates on the dialectal features of the manuscript, and locates it within the context of the manuscript tradition of this important late medieval text. These concerns are typical of the notices written about newly discovered texts in fragments. They are records written mainly for the benefit of textual critics who may
19 Sherman, John Dee, p. 39. 20 John Dee, pp. 39-50. 21 Mortimer, 'The Library Catalogue of Anthony Higgin', p. 69. 22 Library of the Religious Society of Friends, 'About the Collections'
W. Rothwell discusses the discovery of fragments of a Gui de Warewic manuscript in a very brief note, giving a short description of the mise en page and the corresponding line numbers from a critical edition. The Oxford printer's mark on the source binding is noted, but Rothwell rules out the possibility that the fragments came from the same medieval manuscript as two fragments preserved at the Bodleian library since they are written by a different scribe and have different dialectal features.24 It may still be worthwhile investigating links between the three fragments, since it was not uncommon for more than one scribe to work on a single manuscript, and for scribes with different linguistic usages to influence the transmission of a text, which could have been copied from a 'contaminated' source.
Rowan Watson made clear the value of fragments, and how they should be studied: 'it is the role of the cataloguer to recognize the various questions on which a fragment can provide evidence and not solely to mention its textual importance.'25 In more recent years, the discovery of the provenance of the Lambach fragments held by the
Beinecke Library proves how important it is to record all the features of a fragment, not just its textual and palaeographical significance. The Lambach fragments have allowed
Robert Babcock to literally reconstruct the medieval monastic library from which the fragments were disbound and used in the monastery's bindery for the printed books that it acquired.26 He lays out the following desiderata for manuscript research:
Ideally, in studying a manuscript we would like to know: who wrote it, where and
when it was written, and what manuscript it was copied from. Additionally it
24 W. Rothwell, ‘New Fragments of a Gui De Warewic Manuscript’, French Studies, 13 (1959), 52. 25 Rowan Watson, ‘Medieval Manuscript Fragments’, Archives, 13 (1973), 61-73 (at p. 63). 26 Babcock, Robert G, Reconstructing a Medieval Library: Fragments from Lambach (New Haven: Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscripts Library, Yale University, 1993). 8
would be interesting to know what happened to the manuscript after it was
produced: who owned it, who read it, how it was interpreted, and whether it
influenced the thinking or writing of its readers. 27
He goes on to say that in the absence of much of this kind of information when faced with a manuscript fragment, it is important to find out as much as possible about
when and where it was written and read. The principal task facing a scholar
studying manuscript fragments is to find the clues that will reveal the history of
the manuscript and its readers.28
Many of the fragments in the Beinecke collection have been found to come from the same manuscript, and most crucially, they contained evidence that led to the source of the fragments. For example, in the Easter liturgy of a twelfth-century antiphonary, Lauds is
'interrupted by antiphons in praise of St. Kilian and of Mary'. The cult of Kilian was not widespread, and this led to Lambach, major centre for his cult.29 'Parchment leaves from old manuscripts were reused in the Lambach bindery as pastedowns and flyleaves, protecting the pages of the new book from the leather, wood, and nails of the binding.' As
Babcock outlines, the most basic step in cataloguing and describing fragments is measuring them, as this can help to reveal provenance:
Many of the leaves known to come from Lambach were found to be almost
identical in size. This is not because they were originally from manuscripts of the
same dimensions, but because they had been trimmed for use in bindings of the
same dimensions. The Lambach bindery of the fifteenth century was responsible
27 Babcock, Reconstructing a Medieval Library, p. 11. 28 Babcock, Reconstructing a Medieval Library, pp. 14. 29 Babcock, Reconstructing a Medieval Library, p. 15. 9
for the dismemberment of the manuscripts and the trimming of the leaves, and
many of the bindings that it produced conformed to a small number of standard
sizes.30
Ker's publication on pastedowns in Oxford bindings, first published over five decades ago, remains a landmark in medieval manuscript fragment studies.31 Watson, in his article about the value of studying fragments, makes the case that the non-textual aspects of fragments are also an important form of evidence, giving the example of Neil Ker's study of fragments of medieval manuscripts used as pastedowns in Oxford bindings.32 The tools used by Oxford book binders are used as the organising principle for the comprehensive list of pastedowns. Tools can be associated with bookbinders, so the fragments of manuscripts` used in the bindings can also be associated with these bookbinders and it is possible to estimate when and where the unbinding of medieval books took place. Ker was able to show that between 1490 and 1540, when Oxford college libraries were acquiring printed editions of legal texts, manuscript copies of
Canon and Civil Law texts were being redeployed as binding, whereas liturgical manuscripts were not systematically destroyed in this way until after 1540.33 21 of the
Ripon fragments were included in this corpus of more than two thousand pastedowns in bindings whose tooling allows them to be dated and attributed to individual workshops in
Oxford. After describing the pre 1540 and post 1540 methods of using parchment pastedowns and paper flyleaves, Ker noticed one binder who used both methods, and
30 Babcock, pp. 26-27. 31 Ker, Neil R, Fragments of Medieval Manuscripts Used as Pastedowns in Oxford Bindings: with a Survey of Oxford Binding C. 1515-1620, Oxford Bibliographical Society, Third Series, no. 4, rev. ed. (Oxford,:Oxford Bibliographical Society, 2000). 32 Watson, 'Medieval Manuscript Fragments', p. 63; Neil Ker, Fragments of Medieval Manuscripts Used as Pastedowns in Oxford Bindings: With a Survey of Oxford Binding c. 1515-1620, Oxford Bibliographical Society Publications, New Series Volume 5 (Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society, 1954). 33 Ker, Fragments, p. vii. 10 there are two bindings in the Ripon collection which 'suggest that he was making experiments. In each of them the pastedowns and flyleaves are turned up round the end- section in the old way and, as additional strengthening, six strips of parchment are laid round the back between the bands and half-bands and pasted to each cover underneath the pastedown.' Ker remarks that he has not come across other examples of this method.34
The Ripon pastedowns included in this study of Oxford bindings were all used in books printed after 1537, and mainly consist of theological works, with some liturgical texts and works by Aristotle, Aquinas and Peter of Blois.35
Obviously, the Ripon sample of fragments is too small and contains material from too wide a variety of sources to use it as a dataset for a similar study. As Ker says
'Knowledge of this sort is almost useless if applied to a few bindings and pastedowns only: there is great virtue in numbers.'36 However, the case studies of interesting fragments will demonstrate why it is worth taking the time to study this challenging material in depth. Because the fragments belong to a collection with a strong identity and association with its owner through the various stages in his life, then studying them is a worthwhile activity even if there is no strength in their numbers compared to the corpus studied by Ker. David Rundle and Scott Mandelbrote, the editors of the revised edition of
Ker's study of the pastedowns, expressed their hope that it would inspire continued study of these 'valuable, tantalising shards of evidence.' They acknowledge that the fragments listed by Ker will not often be of use to scholars creating critical editions of text, but can be used as evidence for the reception history of texts, and for library history research.37
The most recent major work on manuscript fragments are the proceedings of a
History of the Book seminar which united scholars who are working on various aspects
34 Ker, Fragments of Medieval Manuscripts, p. 227. 35 Ker, Fragments, p. 258 (index entry for pastedowns in books belonging to Ripon Cathedral Library). 36 Ker, Fragments, p. viii. 37 Ker, Fragments of Medieval Manuscripts, p.†2 11 of medieval manuscript fragments.38 The collection of papers asks why books are transformed into fragments, examining possible reasons as reading fashions, redundancy, heresy or the wearing out of a popular book. Recurrent themes are the importance of identification, and of recording the physical features of the manuscript to aid interpretation. Several of the approaches in this book have informed the choices taken in formulating the methodology of this study.
Methodology
Previous critics have listed certain of the fragments because they are part of an identifiable group, like Ker, or they have written about an individual text identified in one of the fragments, or they've written about the person who compiled the collection and how it was used and where it originated. But this is the first time that the collection as a whole has been addressed in a single study. One methodological problem is that I am approaching this as both a historian of a library, and as a historian of the book. This is unavoidable because the production and acquisition of the books in the library throw light upon each other.
The methodology employed in this study of the fragments and the books in which they have been used as bindings has been based mainly on observing and describing the characteristics of the materials as outlined by scholars of binding. I have also used knowledge of palaeography to decipher the texts and to test the identifications made by other cataloguers and scholars such as Jean Mortimer and Neil Ker. I have considered the fragments and the collection of books in the historical context in which they were produced in order to throw more light upon their significance and to understand their use through time. This study is an exploration and it will be seen time and again that more
38 Linda L. Brownrigg and Margaret M. Smith, eds., Interpreting and Collecting Fragments of Medieval Books: Proceedings of the Seminar in the History of the Book to 1500, Oxford, 1998 (Los Altos Hills and London: Anderson-Lovelace and Red Gull Press, 2000) 12 research is needed. But having followed the methodology of close observation recommended by Jennifer Sheppard39 I hope to show the usefulness of measuring and observing in as much detail as possible. This has led to some new discoveries,and this additional information will hopefully be of use to others who are interested in the Ripon fragments. The point of this exercise has been to test methodologies which will hopefully one day lead to the development of a full catalogue of the fragments.
39 Sheppard, Jennifer M., ‘Medieval Binding Structures: Potential Evidence from Fragments’, in Interpreting and Collecting Fragments of Medieval Books: Proceedings of the Seminar in the History of the Book to 1500, Oxford, 1998 (Los Altos Hills: Anderson-Lovelace, 2000), pp. 164-75 13
Chapter 1:Overview of the fragments
The fragments of medieval manuscript used in the bindings of the Ripon Cathedral
Collection are far outnumbered by printed waste materials, which also provide a
fascinating treasure trove of evidence. However, the scope of this dissertation is limited
to the 65 fragments of manuscript material. Some are spine lining strips, or single
pastedowns, but most come as pairs. The fragments are for the most part damaged,
discoloured, and difficult to read as a result of the processes of being pasted down (and
being disbound). Some of the fragments are extremely fragile. They range in size from
34 by 24 cm to 7 by 8 centimetres. 26 are still in situ, while the rest have been detached
in the process of conservation work.
The texts contained in six of the fragments remain completely unidentified, while
21 have been characterised in the most general terms as a theological treatise or
commentary. It is acknowledged even by Ker, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of
medieval texts and manuscripts, that sometimes this is as precise as it is possible to be
with obscure texts.40
These facts and figures explain why fragments are so tantalising to study. As
Rowan Watson has remarked, 'the encouragement to work on manuscript fragments has often been the hope of making sensational discoveries of a textual nature'.41 Many have made interesting discoveries among the Ripon Fragments over the years. These include a fragments of Mandeville's Travels discovered by A. C. Cawley,42 a binding strip containing text from the South English Legendary which has been published by the Early
English Text Society,43 and a few dozen lines from the Old French Romance Gui de
40 Ker, Pastedowns, p. xvi. 41 Rowan Watson, ‘Medieval Manuscript Fragments’, Archives, 13 (1973), 61-73 (p. 63). 42 A. C. Cawley, ‘A Ripon Fragment of Mandeville’s Travels’, English Studies, 38 (1957), 1-3. 43 The early South-English legendary; or, Lives of saints, ed. by Carl Horstmann, Early English Text Society, (Original series), 87 (London: N. Trübner, 1887) pp.204-5. 14
Warwic noted by W. Rothwell.44
Relationship between the fragments and the bindings
25 of the detached fragments display foldstains which are caused by tannin leaking from
the leather covers. They are not caused by the paste used to paste the fragments down,
but this kind of stain does mean that they were used as pastedowns rather than flyleaves.
I will first describe the physical characteristics of the fragments and their relationship
with the binding in which they are preserved, before venturing into using the fragments
as a way of reconstructing the books in which they originally featured as leaves; this will
lead on to a consideration of the textual, palaeographical and codicological evidence for
identifying the original host book.
Nicholas Pickwoad, in Interpreting and Collecting Fragments of Medieval Books,
describes the various ways in which fragments of medieval manuscripts are used to
strengthen the bindings of early printed books. The Ripon fragments include several
examples of the typical uses described by Pickwoad.45 Thirty-six of the fragments have
been detached in the process of conservation work, while the rest are still in situ. In the
case of the detached fragments, although for the most part the original binding structure
they belonged to no longer exists, they bear marks which allow us to infer how they were
employed in the binding. Thirty-two of these detached fragments have been used as
pastedowns, that is, a whole leaf which has been stuck to the boards of the binding: in
some cases these are single pastedowns, but most come in pairs, in which two leaves
from the same manuscript have been employed for the front and rear boards of the
44 W. Rothwell, ‘New Fragments of a Gui De Warewic Manuscript’, French Studies, 13 (1959), 52. 45 Nicholas Pickwoad, 'The Use of Fragments of Medieval Manuscripts in the Construction and Covering of Bindings on Printed Books', in Linda L. Brownrigg and Margaret M. Smith, eds., Interpreting and Collecting Fragments of Medieval Books: Proceedings of the Seminar in the History of the Book to 1500, Oxford, 1998 (Los Altos Hills and London: Anderson-Lovelace and Red Gull Press, 2000), pp. 1- 20. 15 binding.
The diagnostic features that allow us to identify fragments as pastedowns, even in the absence of the original bindings of which they formed part, are several. The pastedowns in the collection typically bear the holes left by the sewing stations where the fragment was stitched to the spine, the impressions left by the lacing channels, the stains of tannin from the leather covers folded back over the board, holes left by the furniture or fastenings used to keep the book closed and, on the side of the pastedown which was in contact with the board, traces of the grain, or even splinters, of the wooden board occasionally adhere to the leaf. The presence of all or some of these features provides a secure indication that a leaf was employed as a pastedown.
Other forms of binding waste use identified by Pickwoad are also identifiable in this collection. There is at least one example of a leaf having been used as a wrapper, that is, fragment 21 (figure 1). The key factors in identifying this leaf as a wrapper include traces of folding, indications of sewing, as well as the unusual shape into which the leaf has been trimmed. The rectangular leaf has been folded over on its long sides and wrapped around a book of approximately 150mm by 100mm, based on the measurements of the fold-lines on the fragment. The sewing stations of the spine structure are visible: it appears that there were two sewing supports and the short edges of the leaf have been folded over the boards. According to Pickwoad this kind of limp binding was used across a wide range of textual productions, from the least expensive up to high-grade works. It is one of the forty fragments which were detached from books whose bindings were very damaged or perished. Some of these bindings have been preserved and, based on examination of the characteristics of the leather covers (such as the distances between sewing supports), it has been possible to identify the origin of the fragments in some cases. In this case, however, it has not proved possible to connect any surviving binding 16
Figure 1: Fragment 21 (leaf from a homilary) 17
with this fragment. As there is evidence of water damage to the fragment itself, it seems
likely that the binding was too badly damaged to be preserved. Based on the textual
features and content, this is one of the oldest fragments in the collection, dating from the
late twelfth century.
Several of the fragments which are still in situ, including fragment 63 discussed
below, and three of the detached fragments, are in the form of strips of parchment. These
were used not as pastedowns but were stitched into the back of the book between the
board and the textblock and flyleaves in order to strengthen the binding. The detached
strips are fragments 27, 33 and 61. The latter is a pair of two strips where the sewing
stations and marks left by the hinge of the book in the binding are very apparent; the
same marks are visible on fragment 27. In the case of 33 we cannot see these marks, and
it may be the case that this strip was used as a spine-lining, which would have been glued
to the spine.46
Identifying the fragments
The texts contained in six of the fragments remain completely unidentified. These are:
Fragment 64, which consists of a pair of pastedowns from the same manuscript,
containing Latin text. It appears to be a commentary on Matthew, because of its
references to the good tree producing good fruit (Matthew 7:18-19). More work needs to
be carried out on the bookbinding and the printed book to see if the two are linked in
terms of provenance. The two books were both in section XVII of the classification
scheme, but would not have been shelved adjacently to each other. Why not? Both of the
books were printed during the 1580s.
The oldest fragment dates from the eleventh century, while the newest features
spelling exercises written in an early modern hand. Viewing the collection as a whole
46 Pickwoad, 'The Use of Fragments of Medieval Manuscripts in Bindings', p. 18. 18 allows one to see the development of script over the course of five centuries. As you would expect, most of the manuscript material is written in Latin, but they also include texts written in Middle English and French. Like the books in which they are preserved, the fragments represent a wide variety of genres. The only decorated fragment is a leaf featuring a puzzle initial from Fragment 26, which originated from the Codex Justiniani
(Roman law codes). 19
Chapter 2: Case Studies
Case study 1
MS Fragment 63 (Scale of Perfection by Walter Hilton (Book 2, chapter 42)) bound
in A Defence of the Godlie Ministers by Dudley Fenner (Middelburg: Richard
Schilders, 1587)
This fragment consists of a binding strip still in situ in a book containing Fenner's work
and two other publications, discussed in more detail below. The fragment contains
Middle English prose in two columns in a fifteenth-century secretary hand, with Latin
text rubricated in red ink. The text in the fragment has recently been identified by John P.
H. Clark as part of Walter Hilton's Scale of Perfection (Book 2, chapter 42),47 and will be
used for a new critical edition of the text in preparation by Michael Sargent.48 Walter
Hilton (c.1343-1396) is thought to have composed the second book of Scale of
Perfection shortly before his death. This means that the manuscript cannot have been
copied before the last decade of the fourteenth century.49 Hilton is thought to have trained
as a cleric in Cambridge and can be associated with several locations in the East
Midlands such as Lincoln, Ely, and Nottinghamshire.50 In addition to this newly
discovered fragment, there are forty other extant manuscripts containing his work,51 at
least one of which exhibits dialectal features of the East Midlands.52 He wrote other
47 Oliver Pickering, personal communication, 30th June 2011. 48 Michael Sargent, personal communication, 5th July 2011. 49 J. P. H. Clark, 'Hilton, Walter (c.1343–1396),' in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online ed., ed. byLawrence Goldman, Oxford: OUP,
Perfection in English to address the needs of lay and religious people, particularly women, who could not read Latin but wanted spiritual guidance (Book 1 is indeed addressed to a novice anchoress).53
The shape and form of the strip and the way that it has been used in the binding, as a strip instead of a full manuscript leaf, can be viewed as possible evidence of a
Cambridge connection, as it was a habit of Cambridge binders to use 'only thin strips as strengthening guards wrapped round the endleaves'.54 London binders also commonly practised this usage, but Oxford binders were more likely to use a whole leaf of manuscript waste as a flyleaf or pastedown.55 Given Hilton's strong links with the East
Midlands, it is not unlikely that a full copy of his Scale of Perfection should have been available to binders in Cambridge. The vast majority of fragments contain Latin text, but
Middle English texts do feature both in the corpus of fragments examined by Ker and in the Ripon fragments.56 Clarke states that the Scale of Perfection was first printed by
Wynken de Worde in 1494, and 'continued to be reprinted until the Reformation changed the pattern of English religion.'57 According to the English Short Title Catalogue, the latest edition of this work to be printed during the sixteenth century was in 1533, a half century before the fragment was used to strengthen the bindings of this book, so it seems more likely that the manuscript was disbound and recycled due to being perceived as obsolete rather than de-accessioned to make room for a new printed version.
Examination of the binding in which this fragment is preserved provides further evidence of its possible provenance. The book is covered in off-white leather. It is plain and undecorated, but the coarse grain of the leather, and the way in which it has
53 Ad Putter, 'The Cloud-Author and Walter Hilton', in A Companion to Middle English Prose, ed. by A. S. G. Edwards (Cambridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2004), pp. 33-52 (p. 34). 54 Pearson, English Bookbinding Styles, p. 38. 55 Pearson, English Bookbinding Styles, p. 38. 56 See, for example, the fragment of Mandeville's Travels mentioned above. 57 Clark, 'Hilton, Walter'. 21 delaminated on the lower cover of the book (figure 2), suggest that it is sheepskin, which is said by David Pearson to be less hard-wearing than calfskin and was often used for books at the lower end of the market, including 'non-conformist devotional works'.58
Although not a devotional work, this volume does contain three works by writers who challenged the established Anglican church. The first, as mentioned above, is A Defence of the Godlie Ministers by Dudley Fenner, published in Middelburg by Richard Schilders in 1587. Fenner died in voluntary exile in this city after being suspended, like many puritan clergy, for refusing to subscribe to Archbishop Whitgift's 'three articles'; A
Defence is an account of this experience.59 The other two volumes, Humble Motion with
Submission and Treatise, Wherein it is Manifestly Proved are both by the controversial
Welsh preacher John Penry and were published by R. Waldegrave in Edinburgh in 1590 according to the English Short Title Catalogue.60 Penry collaborated on the Martin
Marprelate project, and was hanged for inciting religious controversy in 1593.61 Fenner and Penry were among prominent critics of the ceremonies and governance of the reformed English Protestant church, and their texts complement each other well in this single volume.62
This book is not listed in Anthony Higgin's catalogue published by Jean Mortimer but the title page contains information that contributes to our knowledge of the scholarly and clerical milieu that is evoked by Mortimer's detailed provenance research. The
58 David Pearson, English Bookbinding Styles, 1450-1800 : A Handbook (London: British Library, 2005), pp. 18-19. 59 Patrick Collinson, 'Fenner, Dudley (1558-1587)', in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. by H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); online ed., ed. by Lawrence Goldman, January 2008,
Figure 2: Lower cover of Defence of the Godlie Ministers by Dudley Fenner
(Middelburg: R. Schilders, 1587). inscription on the title page of Dudley Fenner's work
reads: ' Anth: Higgin ex Dono M[agist]ri Key Topcliuiensis: .'63
63 I have expanded the abbreviation Mri to its most likely corresponding word. Higgin also addressed Henry Savile with this title on the title page of a 1510 copy of Index alphabeticus siue Reportorium by 23
The most likely identity of the person who gave this book to Higgin is George Key, a graduate of Cambridge University who became vicar of Topcliffe in North Yorkshire in
1614.64 According to Venn, Key matriculated at Queens' College in 1593, so he was in
Cambridge six years after the publication of Fenner's A Defence of the Godlie Ministers in 1587. The cheap binding may well have been within the price range of a student at
Cambridge during the late sixteenth century, and Key could have acquired the book during his theological training, only to pass it on to the Dean of his diocese decades later.
Key and Higgin were not radical puritans like Fenner and Penry. However, the fact that the two Yorkshire clergymen shared this book suggests that their interests were similar to those of the Cambridge scholar Edward Higgins, who also possessed works by Dudley
Fenner and other controversial theological literature in his wide-ranging collection. R. J.
Fehrenbach and Rives Nicholson characterise him not as a 'zealot', but rather as 'a man of a careful, analytical, soberly religious turn of mind more interested in the careful exploration and understanding of the bewilderingly complex religious issues of his day.'65
The fragment of Hilton's Scale of Perfection was probably disregarded by the sixteenth and seventeenth-century readers of the book in which it was bound. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see binders' waste containing a text written to address the spiritual needs of readers in pre-Reformation England being used to strengthen the binding of a collection of works written by ostracised protestant authors who did not consider the Reformation
Joannes Beckenhaub (Mortimer, 'Dean Higgin's Library Catalogue', p. 47. 64 Venn, John, and John A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses; a Biographical List of All Known Students, Graduates and Holders of Office at the University of Cambridge from the Earliest Times to 1900, 4 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922), III, 12. George Key was the maternal grandfather of George Hickes, a royalist theologian and antiquary who co-wrote with Humphrey Wanley and other scholars the Linguarum veterum septentrionalium thesaurus grammatico-criticus et archaeologicus (1703-1705), a landmark work in Anglo-Saxon studies (Theodor Harmsen, ‘Hickes, George (1642– 1715)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online ed, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/13203, accessed 21 Aug 2011] ). 65 R. J. Fehrenbach and Rives Nicholson, 'Edward Higgins, Scholar (M.A.): Probate Inventory. 1588', in Private Libraries in Renaissance England: a Collection and Catalogue of Tudor and Early Stuart Book-Lists, ed. by R. J. Fehrenbach and E. S. Leedham-Green, Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 271, 6 vols (Tempe, Arizona: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1992- 2004), VI: PLRE 138-150 (2004), pp. 193-241 (194). 24 to have gone far enough. The juxtaposition of these contrasting texts in one material object is a physical representation of the powerful religious forces that shaped England between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, and demonstrates how much can be learnt from examining fragments in binding which has been left completely intact. 25
Case study 2
MS Fragment 8 (Lancelot Proper (Sommer ed., III, pp. 329-337), previously bound in Secunda pars divini operis Pantheologie summe fratris Rayneri Pisani by Rainerius de Pisis (Lyon: Constantin Fradin, 1519)
Figure 3 shows one of a pair of pastedowns containing text from the Lancelot Proper, from a manuscript dating from the late thirteenth to fourteenth century.66 In contrast to the fragment discussed in the first case study, MS Fragment 8 has been detached from its host book in the process of conservation work, like the majority of the fragments. This means that valuable evidence of its use has been lost to historians of binding. The fact that the fragment is detached makes it easier to measure and describe, and from the point of view of literature specialists and palaeographers, the text in the fragment is more accessible when it is in this detached state, but Nicholas Pickwoad is right to emphasise the 'symbiosis in the value of these fragments to both the manuscript and the binding historian.'67 The fragment consists of a pair of vellum leaves, with uneven sides measuring approximately 260 mm by 200 mm. No rule lines are visible, but the text is laid out in two 80 mm-wide columns with an intercolumnar space of 10 mm, although the width of the columns on part 1 verso is uneven, with one measuring 75 mm and the other 85 mm. There is no pricking at the edges of the leaves that might have accompanied the ruling of the mise en page, probably because the leaves have been heavily cropped to fit the boards of the printed book in which they were used. The decoration visible on these pages is minimal, consisting of two-line-high initials in alternating red and blue with very minimal pen flourishing. Also, on the recto of part one, the decorator of the manuscript has opted to highlight in red pigment the paraphes,
66 According to Brian Woledge's bibliography, the text corresponds to vol. III, pp. 329-337 of The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances:Edited from Manuscripts in the British Museum,ed. by H. Oskar Sommer, 7 vols (Washington: Carnegie Institute of Washington, 1908-1916) (Brian Woledge, Bibliographie des romans et nouvelles en prose francaise antérieurs a 1500. Supplement 1954-1973 (Geneve: Droz, 1975) p. 52). 67 Pickwoad, 'The Use of Fragments of Medieval Manuscripts in Bindings', p. 19. 26 tironian rotas, the abbreviation 'h' which stood for the name Hector, and other letters.
Woledge's identification of the fragment as dating from the thirteenth century is
Figure 3: Fragment 8 part 1 recto (Lancelot Proper) 27 supported by the presence of dashes set above the 'i's to distinguish them from other minims and make the text more readable, a practice which became prevalent in late thirteenth-century manuscripts.68 A sign of use which probably dates from when the leaves were in their original medieval codex is the presence of a manicule on the rector of part two of the fragment, pointing at lines which describe Hector snatching an axe from a villein and frightening him off with it. The prose Lancelot was one of the most popular romances of the Middle Ages. The relative plainness of the fragments, and the inconsistencies in layout and decoration that are apparent from just these two leaves, suggests that their original provenance was not a manuscript of the highest grade, and even though the margins have been cropped, it probably did not originate from a very large codex.
Although the fragment is no longer an integral part of binding, the Brotherton
Library records that it was previously used as binders' waste in volume 2 of the 1519 edition of the Pantheologia by the fourteenth century monastic writer, Rainerius de Pisis
(volume 1 does not belong to Ripon Cathedral Library). Even if this information were not available, it might have been possible to match the pastedown to the binding by comparing features in common. They share similar dimensions, and the pattern of bookworm damage in the fragment fits that of binding; one bookworm hole in the fragment penetrates 10 mm into the text block as well. There are matching distances between sewing stations on the fragment and bands on the spine of the book. The most striking feature that links the fragments to the binding are the green-rimmed holes made by the fastening in MS Fragment 8 part 2 and the corresponding lower cover. The distance between the holes in the fragment is 173 mm, which equals the distance between the nail-holes made for the metal fastenings on the cover (only the impression of the
68 Charles Samaran and Robert Marichal, Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine partant des indications de date, de lieu ou de copiste, 7 vols (Paris: Centre nationale de la recherche scientifique , 1959-84). 28 metal on the cover remains).
Figure 4: Title page of Pantheologia by Rainerius Pisis
The folio book was printed in Lyon by Guillaume Huyon at the expense of Constantin
Fradin; the woodcut on the extensively damaged and restored title page features on many of this publisher's works (figure 4).69 It was a 1.5 million-word theological work, one of the longest written during the medieval period, and is extant in five incunable editions published in Germany. The 1519 Lyon edition seems rare in comparison; according to
Dennis Rhodes' article on the bibliography of the Pantheologia, Oxford University and
Cambridge University have partial copies, and the Bibliothèque municipale de Lyon has
69 Henri Louis Baudrier, Bibliographie lyonnaise: recherches sur les imprimeurs, libraires, relieurs et fondeurs de lettres de Lyon au XVIe siècle, 10 vols (Paris: F. de Nobele, 1964-5). 29
the set of two volumes.70 Extant prose Lancelot manuscripts are abundant in comparison
to the rarity of the Pantheologia supported by the pastedowns.
On first glance, this case of a manuscript written in French found within the binding of a book which was printed in France might suggest a French provenance for both the manuscript and the binding. However, as we know, a book was not necessarily bound at the place where it was printed. The book would not necessarily have been bound in the same place as the printer; as a rule, they were imported in sheets.71 The roll that features on the front and back covers appears to be an example of roll X according to
Gibson's classification of binding tools, or DI.a(5) according to Oldham's survey.72 The tool used for this roll was in use in Oxford around 1525 and c. 1537-50.73 However, as
Pearson points out, 'X is a roll of very general design which may have existed in multiple very similar versions,' so it may not necessarily be the case that the binding originates from Oxford. The fact that Ker did not include this fragment in his survey of pastedowns in Oxford bindings might suggest that he did not believe it originated from there either, although it is also the case that Ker only included in the corpus fragments which are still in situ.
There are two marks of ownership inscribed on the book. The first half of
Anthony Higgin's signature can be seen faintly on the remnant of the title page (figure 5).
70 Rhodes, Dennis E., ‘Notes on the Bibliography of Rainerius De Pisis’, British Library Journal, 22 (1996), 238-41 (pp. 238-9). 71 Mirjam Foot, The History of Bookbinding as a Mirror of Society (London: British Library, 1998), p. 10. 72 Strickland Gibson, Early Oxford Bindings (Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society, 1903); James Basil Oldham, English Blind-stamped bindings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952). 73 David Pearson, Oxford Bookbinding 1550-1640: including a supplement to Neil Ker's Fragments of Medieval Manuscripts used as Pastedowns in Oxford Bindings, Oxford Bibliographical Society, Third Series, 3 (Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society, 2000), p. 67. 30
Figure 5: Title page of The Defence of the Godlie Ministers by Dudley Fenner, featuring
Anthony Higgin's inscription.
On the flyleaf at the end of the book, which was evidently not removed during conservation, is the following inscription in a hand different to that of Higgin:
Precium huius codice 0------iiij s
Joannis Newmanij Codex
0------xijs
Logically, Anthony Higgin must have owned the book after John Newman. The book is not listed in Higgin's catalogue, so the name is not mentioned in Mortimer's list of people 31 and institutions from whom Higgin obtained books.74 It seems likely that anyone who would own a copy of the Pantheologia would have a serious interest in theology, so it is worth investigating records of Higgin's clerical and scholarly contemporaries. In Venn's list of Cambridge University alumni, eleven men by the not uncommon name of John
Newman studied at Cambridge during the years between the publication of the book in
1519 and Higgin's death in 1624.75 No counterpart has been located in Anthony Wood's record of writers and bishops who attended Oxford.76 Further research is clearly necessary to find out the identity of Anthony Wood, and to ascertain whether the presence of a roll similar to one used in Oxford actually indicates whether the book was bound in that location.
74 Mortimer, 'Dean Higgin's Library Catalogue', p. 69. 75 Venn and Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, III, p. 250. 76 Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses:an Exact History of all the Writers and Bishops who have had their Education in the University of Oxford ; to which are added the Fasti, or Annals of the said University, rev. ed. by Philip Bliss, 4 vols (London: F. C. and J. Rivington, 1813-1820)
Case Study 3
MSS Fragments 24 (single leaf of Decretals) and 25 (Codex Justiniani, VI.xlii-xliii) and the surviving detached leather covers (Ripon Cathedral Library XVIII.J.27)
This case study focuses on a members of the group of fragments about which the least is known for certain of their provenance. According to the provisional handlist, fragments
18 to 26 were originally used as pastedowns in the bindings of books which had their covers replaced in 1873, or which have perished. 26 of the original leather covers have been preserved under the shelfmark Ripon Cathedral Library XVIII.J.27, but there is no existing documentation to suggest which, if any, of these covers can be matched with fragments 18 to 26 (the covers may well have been removed from books whose text block and pastedown had perished). The covers have had labels carefully pasted on indicating the country of origin such as France, England, or Germany, the town of origin such as London or Oxford, and in some cases the individual binder responsible. The task remains to see whether it is possible that any of the detached pastedowns can be matched with these covers.
In order to see whether any matches could be made, it is necessary to record the physical features of both the fragments and the covers. Fragments 18 to 26 have been examined according to the method elaborated by Jennifer M. Sheppard for recording features of pastedowns with particular attention to evidence of the host book structure.
Sheppard recommends that the best way to record the features is to draw the fragment,being mindful of proportions.77 The sketch should include the outlines of the leaf and any marks or holes on it; one should 'indicate any coloured marks, green, rust, brown turn-ins. The measurements should be recorded, as well as whether the fragment is still in situ or detached. Of particular importance is 'the length of the sewing support
77 In my experience, basic picture-editing software can also be useful for pointing out features of interest on digital photographs, if available 33 impressions from the spine edge to the point at which they are wedged and the vertical spaces between them', as well as the length of the lacing channels.78 The leather covers have been examined and described in detail in order to gather corresponding data, paying particularly close attention to the measurements left by the sewing structure and fastenings of the book, as well as decorative features.
Figure 6: MSS Fragments 24 and 26
Following this investigation, it transpires that two of the fragments, MS Fragment 24, containing text from the Decretals, and 25, containing a section of the Codex Justiniani, have perhaps been numbered consecutively for a good reason. There are distinct groups of fragments within the collection as a whole, such as MSS Fragments 18 to 26 which are associated with the leather covers in XVIII.J.27, and MSS Fragments 37 to 57 which are
78 Sheppard, Jennifer M., ‘Medieval Binding Structures: Potential Evidence from Fragments’, in Interpreting and Collecting Fragments of Medieval Books: Proceedings of the Seminar in the History of the Book to 1500, Oxford, 1998 (Los Altos Hills: Anderson-Lovelace, 2000), pp. 164-75 (pp. 173-4). 34 pastedowns in Oxford bindings listed by Ker.79 The grouping of fragments in this way is conveyed by the order of the provisional handlist compiled by Jean Mortimer and other previous librarians at the Brotherton Library. If we take the example MSS fragments 24 and 25 we can see that the handlist makes implicit associations between fragments on a smaller scale as well. The two fragments are not said to have been used in the same volume, but hold the two side by side and it seems clear that they once formed a pair of pastedowns (figure 6). The two fragments do no match each other exactly in terms of height and width: 24 measures 303 by 225 mm, while 25 measures 300 by 220 mm, but the fragments will have been cut unevenly in any case. The distances between the four sewing stations in Fragment 24 are 64 mm, 64 mm, and 65 mm. The corresponding distances between the four sewing stations in Fragment 25 are 63 mm, 64 mm, and 58 mm. The distances do not match exactly, but this is because the holes made by the stitches are of varying length, as can be seen in other examples of known pairs of pastedowns. The impressions left by the lacing channels on both fragments are very similar in size and shape, and line up with each other when viewed side by side. There are signs of holes left by fastenings. The distance between the two pairs of horizonal holes on fol. 25 is 150 mm, and the distance between the pair of single holes visible on folio 24 is 170 mm.
Based on a comparison of the features and dimensions of the pastedowns and bindings, the most likely candidate for the cover of the original host book is no. 14. This is a brown calf binding with the name of the author Suetonius written on the spine in black ink. The size and shape of the traces of the lacing channels matches very closely.
The distances between the four bands on the spine, which correspond to the sewing stations on the pastedowns, are 63mm, 60mm, and 60 mm. There are signs of that a metal fastening was once attached to the book. On the lower cover, there are two horizontal
79 Ker, Pastedowns in Oxford Bindings. 35 pairs of nail holes, 170 mm apart. This could correspond to the distance between the two fastening holes on Fragment 24, if it is assumed that the one of the two horizontal pairs did not pierce the pastedown. As for the distance between the holes on the upper cover, there are 152 mm between them. However, it consists of two vertical pairs of holes, and as such does not exactly correspond to the two horizontal pairs of holes 150 mm apart on fragment 25. It could be the case that only one of the nails pierced the binding, and that the hole on the fragment that is closest to the edge was made by another tool (they are both more like the slits made for sewing stations than the round holes made by tools).
Although the match is not perfect with respect to the fastening holes, the leather cover no. 14 appears to be the best match of all the surviving leather covers for Fragments 24 and 25.
The cover is labelled as an English binding of the early sixteenth century. There are two copies of works by Suetonius in the Ripon Cathedral collection, one from 1647, one from 1686/7. They are obviously too small for the folio Suetonius binding preserved in XVIII.J.27, and date from the second half of the sixteenth century, after Higgin's death.
It appears that the text block of the book has perished, or been lost to the Cathedral
Library in another way. The presence of the pineapple tool device in the lozenge on the cover is a commonly occurring ornament.80 The roll used on the cover features dragons, bees and flowers in a design that is extremely similar to that used in the binding attributed to John Reynes, but it lacks the monograph JR that would allow a secure identification. Furthermore, Ker categorically states that John Reynes never made use of the technique of using manuscript waste for pastedowns.81
80 David Pearson, English Bookbinding Styles, 1450-1800: A Handbook (London: British Library, 2005), pp. 121-22. 81 Ker, Pastedowns in Oxford Bindings, p. vi. 36
Case Study 4
MS Fragment 20 (Brunetto Latini, Livres dou Tresor)
At the outset of this project, the text of MS Fragment 20 was described in the provisional handlist as a manual of Old Testament History in French. I reasoned that the numerous names of kings and queens would provide the key to identifying the source, and this search strategy led to Brunetto Latini's Livre dou tresor in an online edition made available by Julia Bolton Holloway and Angus Graham.82 This is an encyclopaedia written by Latini while he was in exile in France during the thirteenth century. The fragment itself has been dated to the late fourteenth century, but before carrying out extensive work on where it fits into the vast manuscript tradition of the Livres dou Tresor, it is worthwhile exploring what clues it contains as to its origins. It features annotations made in an early modern hand perpendicular to the text, for this bifolium was unfolded and used as a pastedown in the back of a book. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to match it with any of the covers shelved under XVIII.J.27.
It is relatively uncommon to find French material used as binders' waste. In Ker's
index of texts contained in over two thousand fragments, nine are said to contain French
material. Two contain material by identifiable authors of a historical nature which is
broadly in a similar genre to the Livres dou tresor, that is, works by the chroniclers
Guibert de Metz and Herman de Valenciennes. The rest contain unidentified verses on
the crusades, three legal texts, a French version of the ten commandments and a
psalterium with a parallel French text.83
The pastedown MS Fragment 20 is a single bifolium from a manuscript book,
which is currently folded as it would have been in its original binding. However, the
82 Julia Bolton Holloway and Angus Graham, online edition of Brunetto Latini's Livres dou Tresor
'Yorke' appear to be written in the gutter of the bifolium. It is not possible to tell whether the writing is connected to the contents of the text, but a reader has traced the red pigment pen-flourishing of the initials in brown ink during doodline.. The annotations must have been made by one of the readers of the book while the manuscript was used as a pastedown, because unless the fragment was at the centre of quire in original ms, it would be impossible for writing in gutter of leaf to have taken place before it was repurposed. The impression of the grain of the wood on the board has been left on the side of the fragment that was stuck to the board. It goes in the direction of of the text.
Measuring the distances between these points of reference on the preserved bindings to see if any corresponded to the dimensions suggested by this fragment has not yielded any success. 38
Conclusion
Describing and identifying fragments is extremely time consuming. It can be a fascinating project, but it is difficult to make it a priority for cataloguing in depth if the fragments are regarded solely from the point of view of a textual critic because one cannot be sure of the significance of what might be found until a great deal of time has been spent identifying and describing the material. But describing the physical features fully shows the relationship they have with bindings and with other textual practices throughout history and might make for a stronger argument for paying more attention to them. As Ker has said: 'The leaves of manuscript thus employed form a principal part of the binding fragments in our libraries, fragments which are intimidating in the mass, but which can be made more tractable if we pay attention to the different ways in which they were used and the different dates and places at which the binders worked.'84
84 Ker, Fragments of Medieval Manuscripts, p. vii. 39
Appendix 1
Ripon Cathedral MS Fragments: A provisional list
This list was first compiled on cards by Jean Mortimer and other staff at the Brotherton Library, University of Leeds. Elaine Charwat created a word version of the list in 2007, and the present author has updated it with further revisions, although the information is not complete.
Ripon Cathedral MS Frag. 1 Leaf of a Missal Date 11th century Language [Latin?] Script Written in an English hand Material Parchment Physical [1 leaf], 27-28 lines Contents xxx Proven. From the binding of XVII.J.10q (Casus Decretorum Bartholomei Brixiensis, 1489) Note A second pastedown from the same binding is now missing foldstain indicating tannin 2 Strips from a Hymnal Date 11th century Language [Anglo-Saxon & Latin?] Script Written in an English hand Material Parchment Physical 2 bifolia of a small ms with probably 22 lines per page Contents With interlinear glosses (1 in Anglo-Saxon) I. The longer strip contains fragments of 4 hymns (cf. The Latin hymns of the Anglo-Saxon church, Publications of the Surtees Society v. 43, 1851, pp. 86-88): (a) Aurora lucis; (b) Hymnum canemus glorie; (c) Veni creator spiritus; (d) Beata nobis gaudia II. The shorter strip also contains fragments of 4 hymns (cf. The Latin hymns of the Anglo-Saxon church, Publications of the Surtees Society v. 43, 1851): (a) A solis ortus cardine (p. 50: 7- 12); (b) Magnus miles mirabilis (p. 68:1 of Magnus miles); (c) Christe sanctorum decus (p. 69: last line & p. 70: lines 1-5); (d) Magno canentes (p. 74: 11-16) Proven. Binding material, still in situ: XIII.D.39 (Virgil, Bucolica, 1543) “In the binding of Vergil’s Eclogues. Antwerp, 1544” [Wrong title / Note classmark?] Identified by N.R Ker, 1952” [Ref. for Ker] 5 Fragment of (John) Mandeville’s Travels Date 15th century Language Middle English Script xxx Material Parchment Physical xxx 40
Contents Part of the description of Jerusalem, beginning: “Ascalon at xviij myle. Jaffe at xxij myle…” and ending “& it was wont to be called Effrata as Holy writ saith Ecce audivimus eum in Effrata that is to sey. Lo we…” Proven. Used as wrapper of printed book, still in situ: XIII.A.35 (Petri Carpenterii I. C. Epistola ad Franciscum Portum Cretensem, 1573) Note The fragment is printed, with notes on the ms., by A.C. Cawley, in English Studies, XXXVIII, 6, Dec. 1957 6 Leaf from a service book Date xxx Language xxx Script xxx Material Paper Physical [1 leaf?] Contents With music Proven. From the binding of XVII.E.10 Calfhill, An aunswere to the Treatise of the crosse, 1565 Note xxx 7 Leaf containing part of Augustine’s Sermo 348 Date c.1340-50? Language Latin Script xxx Perhaps written by a professional scribe Material Paper Physical 1 and half leaf Contents I. part of Augustine’s Sermo 348, ending “Explicit liber de timore dei editus a beato augustino” (PL v.39, 1526/9) end only II. beginning of “Testamentu Francisci” (39 lines)
Proven. Although possibly from a Franciscan house, it would have been unusually Note large for a Franciscan ms. Card signed K.W. Humphreys [?] 8 2 leaves of a French prose romance [Lancelot?] Date [???] Language French Script [???] Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves, 2 columns, 38 lines to a column. Capitals in red and blue Contents French prose romance Proven. Used as pastedowns in the binding of Rainerius de Pisis, Secunda pars divini operis Pantheologie summe fratris Rayneri Pisani, 1519, XVII.G.16 Note Reference: B. Woledge, Bibliographie des romans et nouvelles en prose francaise anterieurs a 1500. Supplement 1954-1973. Geneve, Droz, 1975. p. 52: Ripon, bibl. De la Cathedrale, frag. 8 (13e-14e s.) Un feuillet du Lancelot proper, Sommer III, 329-337. Foldstain indicating tannin 10 2 portions of leaves containing Innocent III’s De miseria humanae conditionis (cf. PL v.217, col.700) Date xxxx Language Latin Script xxx 41
Material Parchment Physical 2 portions of leaves, not consecutive Contents I. Recto: Prologus and c.l. as far as “…interfectus fuissem”; verso: end of c.2 and beginning of c.3. II. beginning of c.6; and part of c.10 Proven. From the binding of C. Klingius, Loci communes theologici reverendi viri Note D. Conradi Klingii Franciscani, 1563, XII.G.1 xxx 11 Parts of 2 leaves, text with heading “De exceptione doli” Date xxxx Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 columns. Capitals in red and blue Contents xxxx Proven. From the binding of Enarratio pia juxta ac docta in Psalmum XXXIII, 1531, XVIII.C.12 Note xxxx foldstain indicating tannin 12 2 leaves of a Latin ms Date xxxx Language Latin Script xxx Material Parchment Physical 2 columns. Capitals in red and blue Contents xxxx Proven. Binding material, still in situ: Destructorium viciorum, 1521, XVIII.J.9 Note xxxx 13 2 leaves of a commentary on Ovid’s Metamorphoses Date xxxx Language Latin Script xxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves, 2 columns, 55 lines to a column Contents Commentary on Ovid’s Metamorphoses Proven. From the binding of I. Forster’s Dictionarium Hebraicum novum, 1557, XIII.B.15 Note [For details / textual comparison see notes on MS Fragment 13 in Green Box (4 leaves)] foldstain indicating tannin 14 Fragments of 2 leaves of Walter Burley’s commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (?) Date xxxx Language Latin Script xxxx Material Paper Physical Fragments of 2 leaves (single sheet), 2 columns. Considerably damaged. Contents Walter Burley’s commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (?) Proven. From the binding of of I. Forster’s Dictionarium Hebraicum novum, 1557, 42
XIII.B.15 – two numbered fragments from same book??? SLP 231109 Note xxxx 15 Xxxx Date Language Script Material Physical Contents Proven. Omnibonus, Leonicenus, M. Annei Lucani vita ex commentario antiquiss, 1475. XVIII.J.10q XVII.F.33 [???] Note Same provenance as fragment 61, Gui de Warwic fragment? 16 2 leaves from a commentary on the Decretals Date 14th century Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves, 2 columns, 68 lines to a column. Capitals in blue and red Contents Commentary on the Decretals Proven. From the binding of Septimus tomus operum divi Joannis Chrysostomi, 1525, X.C.10q Note A few names inscribed on one leaf: “Hodgson”, “Edwarde Helme”, “Robert Forman”, Willm Hilie” foldstain indicating tannin 17 2 leaves of Latin sermons Date xxxx Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves, 2 columns, 39 lines Contents “Sermones”: marginal reference to Eccl., Jeremiah, Job Proven. From the binding of Gwalther, R., In D. Pauli apostoli epistolam ad Romanos homiliae, 1566, XIII.E.1q Note xxxx foldstain indicating tannin 18 2 leaves of a treatise on idolatry Date late 14th century Language Latin Script xxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves, 2 columns, 52 lines. Edges cropped Contents Theological treatise, containing sections numbered 495-502, dealing with idolatry Proven. From a binding. MS Frag. 18-26 originally formed pastedowns in the bindings of books which were rebound about 1873, or which have perished. These fragments were apparently sorted and identified by a visitor to the Library about 1920 (see folder of correspondence in safe). Note Bindings in XVIII.J.27 Box 2. 43
xxxx
Distances between head and sewing stations and tail. 36, 48, 48, [50?], 48, 43 mm foldstain indicating tannin 19 Part of a leaf from a Sarum Missal Date 15th century Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical Part of 1 leaf, 2 columns. The side with Alleluya and music is the recto. Contents Part of a leaf from a Sarum Missal (29 August. Decoll.S.Johan.Bapt. Eodem die S.Sabine Virginis.). Proven. From a binding. MS Frag. 18-26 originally formed pastedowns in the bindings of books which were rebound about 1873, or which have perished. These fragments were apparently sorted and identified by a visitor to the Library about 1920 (see folder of correspondence in safe). Note Bindings in XVIII.J.27 Box 2. Var. scribbles on recto in a 16th century hand, and signature “John Estoste” (?)
Distances between head and sewing stations and tail. C 23 mm, 55 mm, 38 mm, 40 mm, 45 mm foldstain indicating tannin 20 2 leaves of Livres dou Tresor by Brunetto Latini Date late 14th century Language French Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves (single sheet), not consecutive, 2 columns, 31 lines Contents Excerpts from Book 1 of Livres dou Tresor. Proven. From a binding. MS Frag. 18-26 originally formed pastedowns in the bindings of books which were rebound about 1873, or which have perished. These fragments were apparently sorted and identified by a visitor to the Library about 1920 (see folder of correspondence in safe). Note Bindings in XVIII.J.27 Box 2. Marginal scribbles in a 16th century hand
Distances between head and sewing stations and tail. Already measured – see notes foldstain indicating tannin 21 1 leaf from a homiliary Date late 12th century Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical 1 leaf, 2 columns, 36 lines. Damaged by damp 44
Contents Homiliary Proven. From a binding. MS Frag. 18-26 originally formed pastedowns in the bindings of books which were rebound about 1873, or which have perished. These fragments were apparently sorted and identified by a visitor to the Library about 1920 (see folder of correspondence in safe). Note Bindings in XVIII.J.27 Box 2. The second sermon (for 3rd Sunday before Quadragesima) in printed in “Spicilegium hibernianum”, p.187
Distances between head and sewing stations and tail. NB they go through the centre of the leaf. 75 mm by 60 by 50 mm 22 Fragments of 2 sheets from Aegidius de Columna, De regimine principum Date 15th century Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical Fragments (lower portion) of 2 sheets (4 leaves), 2 columns Contents Aegidius de Columna, De regimine principum, I.i.29 seqq [cf.?] Proven. From a binding. MS Frag. 18-26 originally formed pastedowns in the bindings of books which were rebound about 1873, or which have perished. These fragments were apparently sorted and identified by a visitor to the Library about 1920 (see folder of correspondence in safe). Note Bindings in XVIII.J.27 Box 2. xxxx foldstain indicating tannin 23 Single leaf of Bartholomaeus Anglicus, De proprietabus rerum Date 14th century Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical 1 leaf, 2 columns, 50 lines. Damaged by damp Contents Single leaf of Bartholomaeus Anglicus, De proprietabus rerum, containing XVI.cc.45-55 (here numbered 41-51) [cf.?] Proven. From a binding. MS Frag. 18-26 originally formed pastedowns in the bindings of books which were rebound about 1873, or which have perished. These fragments were apparently sorted and identified by a visitor to the Library about 1920 (see folder of correspondence in safe). Note Bindings in XVIII.J.27 Box 2. xxxxx foldstain indicating tannin 24 Single leaf of Decretals Date 13th century Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment 45
Physical 1 single leaf, 2 columns, 49 lines of text Contents Single leaf of Decretals (V.vi.c.14-vii.c.9) [cf.?] Proven. From a binding. MS Frag. 18-26 originally formed pastedowns in the bindings of books which were rebound about 1873, or which have perished. These fragments were apparently sorted and identified by a visitor to the Library about 1920 (see folder of correspondence in safe). Note Bindings in XVIII.J.27 Box 2. With marginal gloss. foldstain indicating tannin 25 Single leaf of Codex Justiniani Date late 12th century Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical 1 single leaf, 2 columns, 49 lines. Edges cropped. Damaged by damp Contents Single leaf of Codex Justiniani (VI.xlii-xliii) [cf.?] Proven. From a binding. MS Frag. 18-26 originally formed pastedowns in the bindings of books which were rebound about 1873, or which have perished. These fragments were apparently sorted and identified by a visitor to the Library about 1920 (see folder of correspondence in safe). Note Bindings in XVIII.J.27 Box 2. xxxx foldstain indicating tannin Gothic bookhand Possibly more than one glossing hand, one of which is writing in anglicana, so book was in use into 13th-14th century. Tironian rota for et 26 2 leaves from beginning of Codex Justiniani Date 1st half of 13th century Language Latin Script Xxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves, 2 columns, 45 lines. Large capitals in red and blue Contents Beginning of Codex Justiniani Proven. From a binding. MS Frag. 18-26 originally formed pastedowns in the bindings of books which were rebound about 1873, or which have perished. These fragments were apparently sorted and identified by a visitor to the Library about 1920 (see folder of correspondence in safe). Bindings in XVIII.J.27 Box 2. Note From the binding of a volume which had old shelfmark B.2.21. Xxxx foldstain indicating tannin 27 2 small fragments from lectionaries Date 14th and 13th centuries Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical (I) 1 leaf, 36 lines. (II) 1 strip, 37 lines 46
Contents (I) 1 leaf from an early 13th century lectionary (II) Strip from a leaf of a 13th century lectionary Proven. From binding of Vigerius, Decachordu[m] christianu[m] Marci Vigerij Saonensis, 1517, XVIII.F.17. Rebound ca. 1873. Note Xxxx foldstain indicating tannin 28 2 leaves of a treatise, De viciis Date late 13th century Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves, 2 columns, 73 lines. Damaged and illegible in parts Contents 2 leaves of a treatise, De viciis Proven. [???] Note xxxx foldstain indicating tannin 29 2 leaves of a treatise on monastic discipline Date early 15th century Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves, 2 columns, 53 lines. Damaged by damp. Contents 2 leaves of a treatise on monastic discipline Proven. From a binding [???] Note xxxx foldstain indicating tannin 30 Single leaf of a Sarum Missal Date 14th century Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical Single leaf, cropped, 2 columns. The side with the music is the recto. Contents Single leaf of a Sarum Missal (“Commune unius confessoris et pontificis”). With music Proven. From a binding [???] Note xxxx foldstain indicating tannin 31 2 leaves from an Antiphoner Date 14th century Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves Contents 2 leaves from an Antiphoner: Nov.2-9. Comm. fidelium defunct. St. Martin; begins at “Audivi” straight through the 2 leaves. With music. Proven. From the binding of a work which had old shelf-mark B3.24. [???] Note xxxx foldstain indicating tannin 47
32 Xxxx Date Language Script Material Physical Contents
Proven. XVIII.J.27/30 [???] Note foldstain indicating tannin 33 Strip of a leaf from the South English Legendary Date early 15th century Language Middle English; written in a Northern dialect Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical Strip of a leaf Contents Strip of a leaf from the South English Legendary: end of Brandan and beginning of Dunstan. Proven. From a binding [???] Note Printed in Early English Text Society, (Original series), 87: The early South-English legendary; or, Lives of saints, 1887, pp.204-5. 34 2 leaves of Decretals Date xxxx Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves, 2 columns, 50 lines of text Contents 2 leaves of Decretals with commentary (V, xxxix, 34 seqq. [???]) Proven. [???] Note xxxx foldstain indicating tannin 35 Single leaf of Digest Date late 13th century Language Latin Script xxxx Material parchment Physical Single leaf, 2 columns, 52 lines of text Contents Single leaf of Digest (xlvii.X.14-15) with commentary [???] Proven. Ex-binding. Old shelfmark (17th century?) B.3.16. [???] Note xxxx foldstain indicating tannin 37 xxxx Date Language Script Material Physical 48
Contents Proven.
Note 37 2 leaves of Aristotle (?) Date 13th century Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves Contents 2 leaves of Aristotle (?), probably either Physics or De celo. Proven. Binding material, still in situ, in binding of Alciati, D. Andreae Alciati ... ad rescripta principum commentarii, 1536, XVIII.E.7 Note N.R. Ker’s list. 38 2 fragments of Pseudo-Bede, Collectaneum Date 13th century Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 fragments forming 1 complete leaf Contents 2 fragments forming 1 complete leaf of the Collectaneum of Ps. Bede (really of Florus of Lyon) on the Pauline Epistles from the work of St. Augustine. Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in Rouille, Promptvarii iconvm insigniorvm à secvlo hominum, 1553, XVIII.G.5. Oxford binding. Note N.R. Ker’s list. 39 Fragment of a commentary on Aristotle Date 13th/14th centuries Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchments Physical 1 fragment Contents From a commentary on Aristotle (one of the logical works apparently) Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedown in Genebrard, Eisag¯og¯e = Gilberti Genebrardi Benedictini Mosaceni, 1559, XVIII.G.10. Oxford binding. Note N.R. Ker’s list.
40 Fragment of a commentary on St Luke (?) Date 13th century Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 1 fragment Contents From a commentary on St. Luke (?) Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedown in Genebrard, Eisag¯og¯e = Gilberti Genebrardi Benedictini Mosaceni, 1559, XVIII.G.10. Oxford binding. Note N.R. Ker’s list. Two numbered fragments in same host book? SLP 231109 49
41 4 leaves containing letters of Peter of Blois Date 15th century Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 4 leaves Contents 4 leaves containing letters of Peter of Blois Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in Oecumenius, Expositiones antiquae ac valde vtiles breuitatem, 1532. X.E.3 & 4. Oxford binding. Note Other leaves of this MS. (20 in all) are in similar bindings at Oxford and elsewhere. N.R. Ker’s list. Item 293a, p. 29. 42 Fragment of a commentary on St Luke Date 14th/15th centuries Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 1 fragment Contents Fragment of a commentary on St Luke Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedown in Arboreus, Commentarii Joannis Arborei Laudunensis doctoris theology, 1549. XIII.B.5. Oxford Note binding. N.R. Ker’s list. 43 Fragment of Aquinas, Summa theologicae Date 15th century (binding material, still in situ: XIII.B.5) Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical 1 fragment Contents Fragment of Aquinas, Summa theologicae, Tertia pars Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedown in Arboreus, Commentarii Joannis Arborei Laudunensis doctoris theology, 1549. XIII.B.5. Oxford Note binding. N.R. Ker’s list. 44 2 leaves from a theological work Date 14th century Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves Contents Theological work. Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in Confessio illustrissimi Principis ac Domini, D. Christophori ducis Wirtenbergensis et Theccensis, 1561, XIII.C.6. Oxford binding Note N.R. Ker’s list. 45 2 leaves from a Breviary Date early 13th century Language Latin Script Xxxx 50
Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves Contents Breviary (feast of Corpus Christi) Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in Petri Bembi Epistolarum, Leonis decimi pontificis, 1547. X.A.6. Oxford binding. Note N.R. Ker’s list. 46 Fragment of a commentary of Thomas Chillenden Date 15th century Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical 1 fragment Contents Fragment of a commentary of Thomas Chillenden on the Sext (= New College MS. 204, f.168) Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedown in De re rustica. M. Catonis lib. I, M. Terentii Varronis lib. III, Palladii lib. XIIII., 1535, XVIII.C.30. Oxford Note binding. N.R. Ker’s list. 47 2 fragments of an antiphonal Date 15th century Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 fragments Contents Antiphonal Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in Livy, T. Livii Patavini Orationes omnes, ex libris de II bello Punico, 1537. XVIII.C.35. Oxford Note binding. N.R. Ker’s list. 48 2 fragments of a work on scholastic theology Date 14th century Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 fragments Contents 2 fragments of a work on scholastic theology Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in Cajetan, Reverendissimi Domini, Domini Thomae de Vio Caietani Cardinalis sancti Xysti, 1546. X.A.5. Oxford binding. Note N.R. Ker’s list. 49 2 fragments of a theological work Date late 12th century Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 fragments Contents 2 fragments of a theological work Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in Cicero, M.T. Ciceronis epistolarum familiarium lib. XVI., 1546. XVIII.E.6. Oxford binding. 51
Note N.R. Ker’s list. 50 2 fragments of a service book Date 14th/15th centuries Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 fragments Contents 2 fragments of a service book (Processional?) Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in Werdmuller, De ministro ecclesiae, sermones III., 1551. XI.A.3. Oxford binding. Note N.R. Ker’s list. 51 2 leaves from a Bible Date 13th century Language Latin Script Xxxx. Written in a minute hand. Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves Contents 2 leaves from a Bible Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in Giovio, Pauli Jovii Novocomensis, episcopi Nucerini, 1556. XII.B.1. Oxford binding. Note N.R. Ker’s list. 52 2 leaves from a theological work Date early 13th century Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves Contents 2 leaves from a theological work, perhaps a commentary on the Sentences of Petrus Lombardus. Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in Theodoret, Tou makaritou Theod¯or¯etou Eis ta apora, 1558. XII.D.1. Oxford binding. Note N.R. Ker’s list. 53 2 fragments of an Ordinal (?) Date 15th century Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 fragments (= 1 fol.) Contents 2 fragments of an Ordinal (?) Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in Hosius, Confutatio prolegomenon Brentii, 1560. XII.D.12. Oxford binding. Note N.R. Ker’s list. 54 2 leaves from Aristotle Date 13th/14th centuries Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves Contents 2 leaves of a text from Aristotle (the Posterior Analytics?) 52
Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in Garet, Universalis et catholicae ecclesiae de veritate corporis Christi, 1563. XII.F.11. Oxford binding. Note N.R. Ker’s list. 55 2 leaves from a work on logic (Aristotle?) Date late 13th century Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves Contents 2 leaves from a work on logic (Aristotle?) Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in Kling, D. N. Melchioris Kling jureconsulti clarissimi, 1566. XII.J.10. Oxford binding. Note N.R. Ker’s list. Inscription in early modern hand on back flyleaf: Josua Gilpin 56 2 leaves from a Penitential Date 14th century Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 leaves Contents 2 leaves from a Penitential Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in Ravisius Textor, Joannis Ravisii Textoris Nivernensis Officina, 1566. XII.K.1. Oxford binding. Note N.R. Ker’s list. 57 2 fragments of a Psalter Date late 12th century Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Parchment Physical 2 fragments = 1 fol. Contents 2 fragments of a Psalter Proven. Binding material, still in situ, pastedowns in: Carion, Chronicon Carionis, 1581. XVI.D.12. Oxford binding. Note N.R. Ker’s list. 58 Leaf from a Sarum Breviary Date Xxxx Language Latin Script xxxx Material Parchment Physical 1 leaf, 2 columns; 37 and 42 lines Contents Leaf from a Sarum Breviary containing part of the Horae Sancti Dunstani Episcopi & Confessoris (Lectiones) & “Quincunque vult” Proven. Taken from Plvtarchi vitae, 1496. XVIII.J.1. Note Cf. Memorials of St. Dunstan, ed. by W. Stubbs, Rerum britannicarum medii aevi scriptores; no. 63, 1874 – Appendix VIII Fragmenta ritualia, no. VI (Lectio I+VI, abridged from Abelard’s Life of Dunstan) 59 1 fragment Date xxxx 53
Language Middle English Script Xxxx Material Xxxx Physical 1 fragment Contents Account / expenses [details see note MS 59 in green box] Proven. Taken from: Metzler, In M. T. Ciceronis Catonem Majorem vel de Senectute, 1531. XVIII.C.14. Note xxxx 60 Lessons in spelling, etc. Date Language Script Material Physical Contents
Proven. Note 61 Gui de Warewic Date 13th century Language French Script Gothic bookhand Material Vellum Physical Two columns with rubricated initials. Contents Lines ll. 3391-409, 3426-43, 3461-76, 3496-513, 4404-24, 4511-29 of the Ewert edition of Gui de Warewic (C.F.M.A., 1932). Proven. Omnibonus Leonicenus, M. Annei Lucani vita ex commentario antiquiss. (Venice, 1475) XVII.F. 33 Note Previous version of handlist recorded Fragment as 2 fragments of a York Missal
62 1 leaf from a York Breviary Date late 13th century [?] Language [Latin?] Script xxxx Material [Parchment?] Physical Single sheet Contents Single sheet containing words and music of part of York Breviary, antiphon for the feast of S. Martin. Proven. [???] Note Letter attached, about the fragment: K. Andrews, New College, Oxford, to the Rev. Canon D.M.M. Bartlett, Ripon. [in green box] foldstain indicating tannin 63 [no.?] Fragments from Book 2, Chapter 42 of Scale of Perfection by Date Walter Hilton Language Early 15th century Script Middle English prose Material Xxxx Physical Xxxx 54
Contents Xxxx Proven. Fragments of a religious treatise Binding material, still in situ: Fenner, A defence of the godlie ministers, Note 1587, XVII.B.11 xxxx 64 Xxxxx Date Xxxxx Language Xxxxx Script Xxxxx Material Xxxxx Physical Xxxxx Contents Xxxxx Proven. Fenner, An answere unto the confutation of John Nichols his recantation, 1583. XVII.A.33 Note
65 Extacts from Cicero Date 16th century ? Language Latin Script Xxxx Material Xxxx Physical Xxxx Contents Extract from Cicero, Epist. Fam. Lib. XVI. Proven. Badius, In hoc codice hoc ordine contenta, 1510. XVII.J.11. Note Xxxxx Doodle of man with frilly collar. foldstain indicating tannin 55
Bibliography
Babcock, Robert G, Reconstructing a Medieval Library: Fragments from Lambach (New Haven: Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscripts Library, Yale University, 1993).
Baudrier, Henri Louis, Bibliographie lyonnaise: recherches sur les imprimeurs, libraires, relieurs et fondeurs de lettres de Lyon au XVIe siècle, 10 vols (Paris: F. de Nobele, 1964-5).
Black, Joseph Laurence, The Martin Marprelate Tracts: A Modernized and Annotated Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
Brownrigg, Linda L., and Margaret M. Smith, eds., Interpreting and Collecting Fragments of Medieval Books: Proceedings of the Seminar in the History of the Book to 1500, Oxford, 1998 (Los Altos Hills and London: Anderson-Lovelace and Red Gull Press, 2000).
Cambers, Andrew, Godly Reading: Print, Manuscript and Puritanism in England, 1580- 1720, Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Cawley, A. C, ‘A Ripon Fragment of Mandeville’s Travels’, English Studies, 38 (1957), 262-5.
Clark, J. P. H., 'Hilton, Walter (c.1343–1396),' in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); online ed., ed. by Lawrence Goldman, January 2008,
Collinson, Patrick, 'Fenner, Dudley (1558-1587)', in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. by H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); online ed., ed. by Lawrence Goldman, January 2008,
English Short Title Catalogue
Fehrenbach, R. J., and Rives Nicholson, 'Edward Higgins, Scholar (M.A.): Probate Inventory. 1588', in Private Libraries in Renaissance England: a Collection and 56
Catalogue of Tudor and Early Stuart Book-Lists, ed. by R. J. Fehrenbach and E. S. Leedham-Green, Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 271, 6 vols (Tempe, Arizona: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1992-
2004), VI: PLRE 138-150 (2004), pp. 193-241.
Foot, Mirjam, The History of Bookbinding as a Mirror of Society (London: British Library, 1998).
Gibson, Strickland, Early Oxford Bindings (Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society, 1903).
Harmsen, Theodor, ‘Hickes, George (1642–1715)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); online ed., January 2008
Hattaway, Michael, in A Companion to English Renaissance Literature and Culture (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002).
Horstmann, Carl (ed.), The Early South-English Legendary; or, Lives of saints, Early English Text Society, (Original series), 87 (London: N. Trübner, 1887).
'Hyperbibliography of Middle English', in Middle English Compendium (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1999)
Jayne, Sears, Library Catalogues of the English Renaissance (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1956).
Ker, Neil R, Fragments of Medieval Manuscripts Used as Pastedowns in Oxford Bindings: With a Survey of Oxford Binding C. 1515-1620, Oxford Bibliographical Society Publications, New Series Volume 5 (Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society, 1954).
Mortimer, Jean E., ‘The Library Catalogue of Anthony Higgin, Dean of Ripon (1608- 1624)’, Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society: Literary and Historical Section, 10 (1962), 1-75.
Oldham, James Basil, English Blind-stamped Bindings. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952).
Pearson, David, ‘The Books of Peter Shaw in Trinity College, Cambridge’, Transactions 57
of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, vol. 9, pt. 1 (1986), 76-89.
---, Oxford Bookbinding, 1500-1640: Including a Supplement to Neil Ker’s Fragments of Medieval Manuscripts Used as Pastedowns in Oxford Bindings, Oxford Bibliographical Society, Third Series, 3 (Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society, 2000).
---, English Bookbinding Styles, 1450-1800 : A Handbook (London: British Library, 2005).
Nicholas Pickwoad, 'The Use of Fragments of Medieval Manuscripts in the Construction and Covering of Bindings on Printed Books', in Linda L. Brownrigg and Margaret M. Smith, eds., Interpreting and Collecting Fragments of Medieval Books: Proceedings of the Seminar in the History of the Book to 1500, Oxford, 1998 (Los Altos Hills: Anderson-Lovelace, 2000), pp. 1-20.
Putter, Ad, ‘The Cloud-Author and Walter Hilton’, in A Companion to Middle English Prose, ed by A. S. G. Edwards (Cambridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2004), pp. 33- 52.
Rhodes, Dennis E., ‘Notes on the Bibliography of Rainerius De Pisis’, British Library Journal, 22 (1996), 238-41.
Rothwell, W., ‘New Fragments of a Gui De Warewic Manuscript’, French Studies, 13 (1959), 52.
Samaran, Charles, and Robert Marichal, Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine partant des indications de date, de lieu ou de copiste, 7 vols (Paris: Centre nationale de la recherche scientifique , 1959-84).
Sargent, Michael, and Valerie Lagorio, 'English Mystical Writings', in A Manual of the Writings of Middle English, 1050-1500, ed. by Albert E. Hartung, 12 vols (New Haven: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1967-), ix (1992), pp. 3049- 3137, 3405-71.
Sheppard, Jennifer M., ‘Medieval Binding Structures: Potential Evidence from Fragments’, in Interpreting and Collecting Fragments of Medieval Books: Proceedings of the Seminar in the History of the Book to 1500, Oxford, 1998 (Los Altos Hills: Anderson-Lovelace, 2000), pp. 164-75.
Sherman, William Howard, John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the 58
English Renaissance (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995).
Sommer, H. Oskar (ed.), The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances: Edited from Manuscripts in the British Museum, 7 vols (Washington: Carnegie Institute of Washington, 1908-1916).
Venn, John, and John A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses; a Biographical List of All Known Students, Graduates and Holders of Office at the University of Cambridge from the Earliest Times to 1900, 4 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922).
Watson, Rowan, ‘Medieval Manuscript Fragments’, Archives, 13 (1973), 61-73.
Woledge, Brian, Bibliographie des romans et nouvelles en prose française antérieurs à 1500. Supplement 1954-1973 (Geneve: Droz, 1975).
Wood, Anthony, Athenae Oxonienses: An Exact History of all the Writers and Bishops who have had their Education in the University of Oxford; to which are added the Fasti, or Annals of the said University, rev. ed. by Philip Bliss, 4 vols (London: F. C. and J. Rivington, 1813-1820)