Anthologies and texts that sometimes differ generically and linguistically, is compounded by the ten- Miscellanies dency (in evidence even in the present work) to conflate this large category of manuscripts, CARRIE GRIFFIN University of Limerick, Ireland problematic especially since terms have not properly been defined in scholarship on later medieval English manuscripts. In Anthologies and miscellanies are perennially addition scholarship in this field does not of interest to medieval scholars because they consistently apply either or both terms, even are characteristic of the type of book produc- though, ostensibly, the term “anthology” tion and compilation that was increasingly has a fairly strict definition (see below). The common in later medieval Britain from c. lack of precision in terminology has led 1350. Indeed books that might be described to terms like “anthology” and “miscellany” using either term preserve many of the most being used “interchangeably, with others important literary texts from all regions of such as ‘commonplace book’ often invoked late medieval Britain; in particular antholo- with misleading imprecision” (Boffey and gies and miscellanies are important to the Edwards 2015, 264), while Connolly and preservation and transmission of short lyrics Radulescu observe that the “loose application and other kinds of verse, but they are also wit- nesses to many types of genres of writing such of a variety of terms,” including others that as legal texts, scientific and medical writings, are frequently substituted for anthology and chronicles, letters, music, devotional texts, miscellany, such as “collection,” “compila- and recipes and charms, sometimes collo- tion,” and “household book,” can lead to the catedwithliterarytexts.Simplyputtheyare “easy dismissal of many manuscripts whose the “typical environment for the survival of contents are of a heterogeneous nature” medieval texts” (Connolly and Radulescu (2015, 4). The situation around terminology 2015, 3). For example, and as Putter (2015, and classification, rather than indicating 81) states, miscellanies are the main way in scholarly confusion, instead seems to reflect which medieval English lyrics and romances a certain fuzziness around the distinction have survived. Importantly they also contain betweenananthologyandamiscellany,one codicological and bibliographical informa- that is the direct result of incredible variance tion that is central to understanding literate in terms of the formal qualities and contents activity in the period, and remain one of the of late medieval manuscripts. Moreover, chief ways in which scholars encounter texts there is the issue of overlap between the two: and versions of texts from the later medieval can intention and evidence of anthologizing period. be discovered in miscellany manuscripts, However, miscellanies particularly present or does their selection of texts represent conceptual difficulties for modern scholars. the difficulty that scribes had in procuring Issues around taxonomy and nomenclature texts to copy, a situation that has been called recurtimeandagainindebatesanddiscus- “exemplar poverty” (Hanna 1996a, 31)? sions. The matter of what to call medieval Scholars are more interested now in the manuscripts that preserve many texts, and nexus between intentionality and practicality,

The Encyclopedia of Medieval Literature in Britain, Edited by Siân Echard and Robert Rouse. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781118396957.wbemlb605 2 ANTHOLOGIES AND MISCELLANIES and are less inclined to dismiss as insignificant of and circumstances of production. The and meaningless miscellany manuscripts: miscellany has often been dismissed for they survive in great numbers from the the very reasons that make it compelling: later medieval period and are central to “the imperfection of texts due to the nature of understandings of scribal culture, reading the version(s) available for copying … occa- habits, compilation, and textual variance. sionally combined with a set of assumptions Nonetheless, they present very real problems about the social status of the compiler or the of definition and scholarly approach. Ina environment in which the manuscript book recent collection of essays editors Connolly was produced” (Connolly and Radulescu and Radulescu refer to miscellanies as the 2015, 1). Miscellanies evince a certain kind of “final frontier in the study of the medieval response in the modern scholar, a response book”; in their view, because the contents that according to Ralph Hanna, in a seminal ofthemiscellanyvolumearemixedtheyare essay on vernacular miscellanies, amounts to consistently overlooked, being “in no one’s a “modern critical befuddlement” about them main interest … overlooked, even ignored, becausetheydonotconformtocontempo- and frequently dismissed as of marginal rary beliefs about the form and content of a interest; where they have received attention book and what that should constitute (1996b, they have tended to be ransacked by editors 37). Bahr (2015, 181) echoes this view, stating for their parts” (2015, xiii). that “terms like miscellaneity and variance Althoughmanyscholarsareinagreement are partly products of the distance between about the cultural, textual, and historical sig- thepastandthepresent.”Conversely,and nificance of the miscellany, and that the term remembering that it is sometimes used inter- ought to be applied to describe a manuscript changeably with the term “miscellany,” the that has mixed contents and that is also fre- word “anthology” is more precise, used in quently polygot, there is still little consensus most cases to refer to a “collection of texts over its precise definition (Connolly and within which some organising principles can Radulescu 2015, 1) or over what the term be observed,” though it must be noted that “miscellany”mightsayaboutamanuscript. both of these terms are still under debate in However the 2012 Insular Books conference medieval studies (Connolly 2015, 5). held at the British Academy concluded that As mentioned above, anthologies and a miscellany might usefully be reframed as miscellanies both supply possibly the most a “multi-text manuscript” (Connolly and common contexts for texts of all kinds in Radulescu 2015, 1). Indeed in the volume MiddleEnglishaswellasinothervernacu- emanating from that conference the editors lars, and both anthologies and miscellanies call attention to miscellany variety, noting preserve texts, sometimes in many languages, that this itself can be mixed: books may in the same volume. However, the key dif- preserve discrete items that are thematically ference between the two seems to relate linked (so, they may all be devotional, for to the degree of planning that went into instance) or different types of text (scientific, the production of the volume and, in that legal, courtly), in verse or prose, or list form, respect, most scholars are in agreement that, short or long, in several languages (3). properly,anthologiesarevolumesthatare The term “miscellany,” then, is used to less miscellaneous in content and structure. describe multi-text manuscripts but also A manuscript anthology might be defined manuscripts of which the contents and as a manuscript “in which coherence is form are heavily contingent on the manner expressed in either the ordering of items or ANTHOLOGIES AND MISCELLANIES 3 similarity at the level of literary genre, or than with any sense of overall plan or specific both” (Connolly and Radulescu 2015, 21). purpose. (2015, 266) Most frequently scholars are compelled to On this manuscript see also Connolly (2011, discover homogeneity or similarity between 132) who cautions against “the temptation to texts as well as evidence of systematic copying impose unduly narrow definitions on such (perhaps by a single scribe) and organiza- anthologies.” tional schemes (in the form of, for instance, In order to demonstrate how terminology running headers, ruling, framing, and consis- canbeinfluential,BoffeyandEdwardscitethe tent programs of illustration and rubrication) example of a similar collection – the so-called to distinguish an anthology from a miscel- “Glastonbury Miscellany” (Cambridge, Trin- lany. However, the presence of one or more ity College, MS O.9.38) – arguing that its con- of these factors in a manuscript does not tents “relate demonstrably to specifics of time automatically indicate that the production andplace”andthatthesinglemostimportant was “planned” or that we might easily label unifying feature is not a thematic focus but in it an anthology. Boffey and Edwards cau- fact the scribal hand (2015, 267). tion against an oversimplified definition It is difficult, then, to generalize about vol- of a volume based on content and aspect, umes occupying this category, and because arguing that only by “understanding the theycanbesaidtosharesomanycrucial processes of assemblage” of manuscripts can features, distinctions between them are not we “determine evidence of some recoverable pattern which might underlie the collocation always visible and clearly drawn. A case of contents in a manuscript collection” (2015, mightbemadeforthecentralityofthe 265). It is their contention that attention miscellany to the medieval consciousness, to the physical and geographical evidence especially since many texts from the Middle may reveal that manuscripts that may look Ages themselves reflect the miscellaneous like anthologies might not necessarily reflect nature of volumes: recently Bahr has sug- “conscious design” but may instead reveal gested that the “range of modern theoretical that books were put together pragmatically approaches to manuscript culture is itself and over long periods of time. a form of variance” (2015, 181). We might One of the examples cited by Boffey even be wise to think about the miscellany and Edwards is the Findern manuscript as a kind of proto-anthology, especially since (Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, fewer anthologies proper survive from the MS Ff.1.16), a Midlands book which is later Middle Ages (assuming that the rate of often labeled an “anthology”; they state that survivalcanbeinpartindicativeofthecon- although the manuscript has stimulated temporary landscape). Putter, when writing discussion with respect to its theme and tone, about lyrics and romance texts, states that literary anthologies were not “typical of the the length of time during which it was effectively Middle Ages – at least not where Middle “under compilation” stands in the way of reading English texts are concerned” (2015, 81). it as a purposively shaped whole. Physical evi- Noting that the situation was different dence of its construction and copying, along with for French lyrics, for which chansonniers the larger history of the circumstances of its cre- ation, suggest that it is better considered as an and collected works existed, Putter observes unusually literary kind of household book, and that “[b]efore the 16th century there is only a collection which took shape accretively rather one planned anthology of secular English 4 ANTHOLOGIES AND MISCELLANIES lyrics,” and that there is a comparable sit- All things considered, the evidence would uation for romances which, prior to the seem to support Hanna’s much-repeated second half of the fifteenth century, were assertion that miscellaneity is the normal transmitted in miscellaneous collections. He contextformedievalbookproductionand finds only one romance anthology – London, for the transmission of medieval texts of British Library, MS Egerton 2862 – a late all kinds (1996a, 9). Hanna’s assertion has fourteenth-century volume (2015, 81–82). been reiterated by many scholars, including However, it must be noted that anthology-like Scahill (2003, 18) who notes the importance volumes were in production, especially of the miscellany in the preservation of “the throughout the fifteenth century, appar- bulk of Middle English verse” and in the ently driven by the commercial practices very “presence of English in the manuscript around the copying of texts in booklet form, records between the middle of the thirteenth but manifesting similarities to other vol- centuryandthemiddleofthefourteenth.” umes in circulation at the time that had a Connolly and Radulescu (2015, 8) also note certain appeal (Boffey and Edwards 2015, that in Welsh manuscripts of the later Middle 268; on the production of booklets and Ages “the multi-text codex was the norm independent quires see Robinson (1980), rather than the exception.” Hanna (1996a, 21–34), and Gillespie (2011)). Though miscellanies and anthologies are features particularly of the later medieval Indeed examples of commercial production period, c. 1350 onward, there are some of such booklets and volumes survive from important survivals from the Old English the workshop of John Shirley (Connolly period: the Exeter Book (Exeter, Cathedral 1998). Mooney (2003, 182), however, argues Library, MS 3501), a tenth-century anthology that Shirley’s anthologies have more features of poetry and riddles which is one of the in common with miscellanies, stating that most significant repositories of Anglo-Saxon Shirley’s compilations, dating from the first literature; the Vercelli Book, a miscellany half of the fifteenth century, are “more miscel- of religious texts produced in England; the laneous” than is suggested by other scholarly Nowell Codex (London, British Library, MS studies of his output. Cotton Vitellius A XV), notable for its preser- Itmightalsobearguedthatantholo- vation of the epic poem Beowulf;andthe gies – seemingly increasing in popularity tenth-century Junius manuscript (Oxford, throughout the fifteenth century – could Bodleian Library, MS Junius 11), a collec- grow around a core text or set of core tion of poems on biblical subjects. Some written work that were originally fabricated less well-known examples include London, separately and that were augmented over time British Library, MS Harley 585, a miscellany by further additions that in some way related containing prayers, medical texts, and poems to the original core text, a point made by Bof- in Old English, Latin, and Irish. Some of the fey and Edwards (2015, in particular 272ff.). remedies found therein bear similarities to And, as Richard Firth Green argues, pro- the book known as Bald’s Leechbook (London, ductions like those volumes associated with British Library, MS Royal D 12 XVII). Shirley – which he terms “medieval antholo- Miscellanies and anthologies are also a gies” – invite speculation about “implied feature of the production of chronicles: for textual communities” and what “principles instance, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, underlie the selection of anthologized items” MS 139, is a twelfth-century historical mis- (2009, 32). cellany in Latin, copied by various scribes, ANTHOLOGIES AND MISCELLANIES 5 which was probably produced at Fountains the texts that Vernon preserves (Firth Green Abbey (for which see Baker 1975). Miscella- 2009, 33). The same might be said for Ver- nies or anthologies that grow out of monastic non’s sister-volume, the Simeon manuscript contexts implicitly relate to a community of (London, British Library, Add. MS 22283), producers and readers; as Firth Green notes, which matches Vernon “in most but not every medieval monastery constituted an ipso all of their contents so far as they survive” facto textual community (2009, 33), but it is (Doyle 2013, 19). However, both volumes less easy to speculate on the kinds of readers are “utterly anomalous in their scale and that are indicated by the miscellanies and ambition among English vernacular books anthologies that begin to appear from the of the later Middle Ages” (Perry 2013, 71) middle of the fourteenth century and, cru- as well as “physically … distinct from most cially, whether the texts selected for copying other devotional manuscripts of the period” demonstrate local interest or the existence of (Scase 2013, xxiii), so questions remain as to acommunity. how they might be categorized and may have It is sometimes easier to speculate when been used (though Firth Green describes evidence points to an institutional context for them as “anthologies” (2009, 32–33)). theproductionofamanuscript.Theso-called Miscellanies that were produced in or at Vernon manuscript (Oxford, Bodleian least that survive from the period between Library,MSEng.poet.a.1),thelargest the middle of the thirteenth century and the surviving Middle English manuscript, dating middle of the fourteenth are often trilingual; from the 1380s or 1390s, preserves material an example is Cambridge, Trinity College, MS that is devotional and didactic, including B.14.39 which has 140 items in Latin, French, “some of the most widely-disseminated ver- and English but which, Scahill argues, has nacular works in later medieval England more unity than most early English miscella- whether in prose or verse,” among them the nies since most of the items are religious and A-text of Piers Plowman,theSouthEnglish gnomic (2003, 19). However, the Auchinleck Legendary, the Prick of Conscience, and Wal- ter Hilton’s Scale of Perfection (Scase 2013, xx; manuscript (Edinburgh, National Library of see also The Vernon Manuscript: A Facsimile Scotland, Advocates MS 19.2.1), produced Edition, and the project website http://www. in London in the 1330s can claim to “mark birmingham.ac.uk/vernonmanuscript/). theappearanceofapublicwhoseliteracy Scholars generally are in agreement that is essentially confined to English” (Scahill Vernon was “produced in a religious house 2003, 18; for a facsimile see Burnley, David, in the West Midlands,” most likely Bordesley and Alison Wiggins, eds., The Auchinleck Abbey, a Cistercian house in Warwickshire Manuscript, Edinburgh, National Library of (Horobin 2013, 27). It might be considered Scotland, www.nls.uk/auchinleck/). Auchin- an anthology and it seems certain to have leck is widely acknowledged as one of the originated in or emanated from a definite most important manuscripts to preserve community involving a network of readers, worksofMiddleEnglishandisfrequentlythe copyists, and texts, but the extent to which it topic of conferences, papers, and book-length accurately reflects that community is uncer- studies (see most recently the essays collected tain. Because it was likely intended for public by Fein (2016)); it is especially notable for the reading or for recitation, the nature of its number of popular vernacular romances it audience remains uncertain, as does the pre- preserves, among them the Guy of Warwick, cise relationship between the community and King Horn, Floris and Blancheflour, Kyng 6 ANTHOLOGIES AND MISCELLANIES

Alisaunder,andSir Orfeo. Although popu- The debate about and scholarly interest in lar romance dominates, it is an important medieval books that do not self-describe, or context for “many of the types of English that do not offer up clear ways in which they verse writing of the period, including saint’s might be understood, has been a concern for legends, religious tales, and didactic works” scholars of Middle English literature in par- andmusthavebeenintendedforuseby ticular since the new direction in manuscript readerswho“wishedtobebothedifiedand studies, spearheaded by Derek Pearsall and entertained” (Pearsall 2016, 13). It is gener- others in the early 1980s and heavily invested ally understood to be an anthology (see for in the context for Middle English texts instance Baswell 2007, 43) – though Fein (Pearsall 1983, 2000). Since then influential uses the term “compendium” in the introduc- essays and studies have combined descriptive, tion to her recent collection of essays (2016, empirical research with more speculative 4) – that was compiled from booklets and arguments. Boffey and Thompson’s study “a professional production, a bespoke book (1989) remains central not just for considera- organizedaroundromance-heavybooklets” tions around verse texts and books preserving copied by five or six scribes under the direc- thembutalsoasanimportantlandmarkof tion of “scribe 1” (Shonk 2016, 178). Unlike knowledge about and attitudes to anthologies the typical medieval miscellany, Auchinleck and (especially) miscellanies at the time, would have been underpinned by rigorous particularly those associated with courtly planning and direction, though its direct audiences and readers. Also influential have intended readership remains under question. been contributions to the volume edited by Another anthology that attracts regular Nichols and Wenzel (1996), which think scholarly attention is the so-called “Harley” through some of the salient conceptual and manuscript (London, British Library, MS theoretical issues around miscellanies and Harley 2253), a trilingual collection that modern scholarly approaches to them, was produced in the 1340s in London, also and the essays contained in Kelly and Thomp- constructed from booklets, and also wit- son (2005), perhaps most especially Pearsall’s ness to important works of Middle English, own contribution (Pearsall 2005), which calls Anglo-Norman, and Latin, in particular into question the search for intentionality prayers, lyrics, political verse, saints’ lives, and organization in miscellany manuscripts moralistic, devotional, and didactic material, and anthologies. and fabliaux.Thecontentsseemtobemis- However, it seems to be the humble miscel- cellaneous, but Fein et al. (2015, 13ff.) note lany that is increasingly of interest to scholars the influence of the Ludlow scribe and his who, like those who engage in holistic studies “anthologizing impulses,” calling attention ofanthologies,havebeguntoappreciate to how he “arranged texts with an eye to these volumes in their entirety, attempting clustering topics, themes, and/or antitheti- to understand them in terms of the ratio- cal arguments inside units smaller than the nale behind their production and the ways whole book.” However Firth Green notes in which they might have been used, read, that despite the work carried out by Revard and shared. As miscellanies become more (2000, 21–109) on the circle of gentry fam- numerous in the late fourteenth and fifteenth ilies in Shropshire that might be associated centuries they are less likely to have been pro- with the Ludlow scribe, there remains the fessionally produced and bear more marks tension between what is available and what is of domestic, amateur production; according interesting in an anthology (2009, 32). to Connolly, “miscellany production in the ANTHOLOGIES AND MISCELLANIES 7 fifteenth century was a more modest under- includes that of Salter (2012) who examines taking, increasingly personal and individual,” the Carle of Carlisle extant in Aberystwyth, while productions such as the Findern and National Library of Wales, MS Porkington 10 the Winchester manuscripts “seem to be late (Brogyntyn 2.1) with attention to how readers flourishing of that earlier tradition of collect- might have understood it in the wider context ing and preserving literary works in one large of the miscellany manuscript; and recently repository” (2015, 291). Some manuscripts Johnston has examined the locally produced from this period have received editorial and miscellanies and anthologies compiled for critical attention, most notably perhaps the the rural landed gentry that preserved many Thornton London and Lincoln manuscripts vernacular romances and other texts, arguing (see Thompson 1987; Fein and Johnston that the texts and volumes “encode socio- 2015), and the commonplace book of Robert economic fantasies that would have held a Reynes (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Tanner particular appeal for the English provincial 407) (Louis 1980). Nonetheless, full editions elite” (2015, 90). and facsimiles of multi-text manuscripts are We also have experienced a surge in work still rare (Connolly 2015, 285, 287) and are that looks at nonliterary textual genres, such varied and sometimes uneven in terms of as scientific and medical works that, more approachandfocus.However,scholarsare often than not, are found in miscellaneous still heavily invested in studies of individual contexts: work by Keiser (1999), for instance, manuscriptsandgenresoftextsaswellasin refocuses miscellany volumes that seem to more conceptual work. be random collections of mainly scientific The recent work on the Vernon, Harley, and utilitarian texts, examining the kind of and Auchinleck manuscripts testifies to lively milieu in which they are produced to argue academic interest in these books and to a for planning and organization, while scholars healthy, productive reconsideration of earlier such as Mooney (2004) have argued that evi- work. Those scholars involved are invested in dence of the use of scientific and utilitarian the production of quality facsimiles or edi- tions/translations alongside essays that tease manuscripts offers a way of understanding out the various intricacies of their production. how and why such collections were compiled. In addition, scholarship that is committed Meanwhile, volumes such as Taavitsainen to case studies of manuscripts, groups of and Pahta (2004) collect some case studies manuscripts, and compilers or to studies of scientific/utilitarian miscellanies that priv- relating to the problems of editing texts from ilege considerations of audience and unity. miscellany and anthology manuscripts con- And significant work by Connolly (2007) on tinues to be produced at pace, as witnessed devotional and practical texts in miscellanies in recent collections of essays (Connolly highlights synergies between these genres of and Radulescu 2015; Gillespie and Wake- text but also similarities in how they might lin 2011, in particular essays therein by have been imagined and read in a miscellany ConnollyandMooney),aswellasinthe context. important collection edited by Hardman Connolly and Radulescu conclude that (2003), which presented studies of specific in order to gain a greater understanding of manuscripts and/or groups of manuscripts, late medieval Insular manuscript miscel- and which also usefully involved discussion lanies, “focused case studies of multi-text of early modern miscellanies. Other work that manuscripts would be welcome, not least attempts to understand literary miscellanies because this would allow the details of the 8 ANTHOLOGIES AND MISCELLANIES overall picture to be shaded in incremental- Baker, D. 1975. “Scissors and Paste: Corpus Christi, ly” (2015, 10). What seems to be emerging Cambridge, MS 139 Again.” In The Materials in newer research is attention to a com- Sources and Methods of Ecclesiastical History, binedapproachtomiscellaniesinparticular: edited by D. Baker, 83–123. Oxford: Blackwell. Baswell, Christopher. 2007. “Multilingualism on intensive study of the texts, codicology, and the Page.” In Middle English, edited by Paul paleography, alongside theoretical consid- Strohm, 38–50. Oxford: Oxford University erations of the kinds of manuscripts that Press. transmit medieval texts, those concerns that Boffey, Julia, and A.S.G. Edwards. 2015. “Towards have been the mainstay of scholarly work in a Taxonomy of Middle English Manuscript this area over the past decades. Attitudes to Assemblages.” In Insular Books: Vernacular miscellanies more often than not acknowl- Manuscript Miscellanies in Late Medieval edge that “cohesion of some kind” is at play Britain, 263–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press. and that cohesion may be “external – directed Boffey, Julia, and John J. Thompson. 1989. “An- towards some function – or internal, in which thologies and Miscellanies: Production and the relationship of texts with each other and Choice of Texts.” In Book Production and Pub- the shaping of the whole are factors” (Scahill lishing in Britain, 1375–1475, edited by Jeremy 2003, 18, after Corrie 2000, 427–28). The J. Griffiths and Derek Pearsall, 279–315. Cam- “blended approach” advocated by Bahr bridge: Cambridge University Press. (2015) – a combination of speculative and Connolly, Margaret. 1998. John Shirley: Book descriptive approaches to miscellanies and Production and the Noble Household in Fifteenth-Century England. Aldershot: Ashgate. anthologies – seems to be one that is cur- Connolly, Margaret. 2003. “Books for the rently favored by scholarship, even if it ‘Helpe of Euery Persoone þat þenkeþ to Be is mostly implicitly at play. Connolly (2003, Saued’: Six Devotional Anthologies from 172), writing about miscellanies, states that “it Fifteenth-Century London.” Special issue,The should not be assumed that no methodology Yearbook of English Studies 33: Medieval and existed simply because none is apparent.” Early Modern Anthologies and Miscellanies, edited by Phillipa Hardman, 170–81. SEE ALSO: Auchinleck Manuscript; Book of Connolly, Margaret. 2007. “Practical Reading for Aneirin; Book of Leinster; Book of Taliesin; BodyandSoulinSomeLaterMedievalMis- Book of the Anchorite; Book of the Dun cellanies.” Journal of the Early Book Society 10: Cow/Lebor na hUidre; Chronicle Tradition; 153–71. Exeter Book; Findern Manuscript; Glosses and Connolly, Margaret. 2011. “Compiling the Book.” Glossing; Hendregadredd Manuscript; In Gillespie and Wakelin 2011, 129–49. Manuscript Production; Percy Folio; Thornton Connolly, Margaret. 2015. “The Whole Book: Edi- Manuscripts; Vercelli Book; Vernon tions and Facsimiles.” In Connolly and Rad- Manuscript; White Book of Rhydderch/Llyfr ulescu 2015, 281–99. Gwyn Rhydderch Connolly, Margaret, and Raluca Radulescu, eds. 2015. Insular Books: Vernacular Manuscript Miscellanies in Late Medieval Britain.Oxford: Oxford University Press. REFERENCES Corrie, Marilyn. 2000. “Harley 2253, Digby 86, and Bahr, Arthur. 2015. “Miscellaneity and Vari- the Circulation of Literature in Pre-Chaucerian ance in the Medieval Book.” In The Medieval England.” In Studies in the Harley Manuscript: Manuscript Book: Cultural Approaches, edited The Scribes, Contents, and Social Contexts of by Michael Johnston and Michael van Dussen, BL MS Harley 2253, edited by Susanna Fein, 181–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University 427–43. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publi- Press. cations. ANTHOLOGIES AND MISCELLANIES 9

Doyle, A.I. 2013. “Codicology, Palaeography, and Louis, Cameron, ed. 1980. The Commonplace Book Provenance.” In Scase 2013, 3–25. of Robert Reynes of Acle: An Edition of Tanner MS Fein, Susanna, ed. 2016. The Auchinleck Manu- 407.NewYork:Garland. script: New Perspectives. York: York Medieval Mooney, Linne R. 2003. “John Shirley’s Heirs.” In Press. Hardman 2003, 182–98. Fein, Susanna, and Michael Johnston, eds. 2015. Mooney, Linne R. 2004. “Manuscript Evidence for Robert Thornton and His Books: Essays on the Use of Medieval Scientific and Utilitarian the Lincoln and London Thornton Manuscripts. Material.” In Interstices: Studies in Late Middle York:YorkMedievalPress. English and Anglo-Latin Texts in Honour of A.G. Fein, Susanna, ed. and trans, with David Raybin Rigg, edited by Richard Firth Green and Linne R. and Jan Ziolkowski. 2015. The Complete Harley Mooney, 184–202. Toronto: Toronto University 2253 Manuscript.Vol.1.Kalamazoo:TEAMS Press. Middle English Texts. Mooney, Linne R. 2011. “Vernacular Literary Firth Green, Richard. 2009. “Textual Produc- Manuscripts and Their Scribes.” In Gillespie and tion and Textual Communities.” In The Wakelin 2011, 192–211. Cambridge Companion to Medieval English Nichols, S.G., and Siegfried Wenzel. 1996. The Literature, 1000–1500,editedbyLarryD. Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on the Scanlon, 25–36. Cambridge: Cambridge Medieval Miscellany.AnnArbor:Universityof University Press. Michigan Press. Gillespie, Alexandra. 2011. “Medieval Books, Their Pearsall, Derek, ed. 1983. Manuscripts and Read- Booklets, and Booklet Theory.” In Manuscript ers in Fifteenth-Century England: The Literary Implications of Manuscript Study. Woodbridge: Miscellanies, c. 1450–1700, edited by Richard Brewer. BeadleandColinBurrow,1–29.London:British Pearsall, Derek, ed. 2000. New Directions in Later Library. Medieval Manuscript Studies: Essays from the Gillespie, Alexandra, and Daniel Wakelin, eds. 1998 Harvard Conference. York: York Medieval 2011. The Production of Books in England, Press. 1350–1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pearsall, Derek. 2005. “The Whole Book: Late Press. Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies and Their Hanna, Ralph III. 1996a. Pursuing History: Middle Modern Interpreters.” In Kelly and Thompson English Manuscripts and Their Texts.California: 2005, 17–29. Stanford University Press. Pearsall, Derek. 2016. “The Auchinleck Manuscript Hanna, Ralph III. 1996b. “Miscellaneity and Ver- Forty Years On.” In Fein 2016, 11–25. nacularity: Conditions of Literary Production in Perry, Ryan. 2013. “Editorial Politics in the Vernon Late Medieval England.” In Nichols and Wenzel Manuscript.” In Scase 2013, 71–95. 1996, 37–52. Putter, Ad. 2015. “The Organisation of Multilin- Hardman, Phillipa, ed. 2003. Special issue,The gual Miscellanies: The Contrasting Fortunes of Yearbook of English Studies 33: Medieval and Middle English Lyrics and Romances.” In Con- Early Modern Anthologies and Miscellanies. nolly and Radulescu 2015, 81–100. Horobin, Simon. 2013. “The Scribes of the Vernon Revard, Carter. 2000. “Scribe and Provenance.” In Manuscript.” In Scase 2013, 27–47. Studies in the Harley Manuscript: The Scribes, Johnston, Michael. 2015. Romance and the Gentry Contents, and Social Contexts of British Library in Late Medieval England. Oxford: Oxford Uni- MS Harley 2253, edited by Susanna Fein, versity Press. 21–109. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publi- Keiser, George. 1999. “Practical Books for the Gen- cations. tleman.” In TheCambridgeHistoryoftheBook Robinson, Pamela R. 1980. “The ‘Booklet’: A Self- in Britain, Vol. III: 1400–1557, edited by Lotte ContainedUnitofCompositeManuscripts.” Hellinga and J.B. Trapp, 470–94. Cambridge: Codicologica 3: 49–69. Cambridge University Press. Salter, Elisabeth. 2012. Popular Reading in English, Kelly, Stephen, and John J. Thompson, eds. 2005. c. 1400–1600. Manchester: Manchester Univer- Imagining the Book.Turnhout:Brepols. sity Press. 10 ANTHOLOGIES AND MISCELLANIES

Scahill, John. 2003. “Trilingualism in Early Mid- English. Cambridge: Cambridge University dle English Miscellanies: Languages and Litera- Press. ture.” In Hardman 2003, 18–32. Thompson, John J. 1987. Robert Thornton and the Scase, Wendy, ed. 2013. The Making of the Ver- London Thornton Manuscript: British Library non Manuscript: The Production and Contents MS Additional 31042. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Eng. poet. a.1. Turnhout: Brepols. Shonk, Timothy A. 2016. “The Production Meth- FURTHER READING ods of Auchinleck Revisited.” In Fein 2016, 176–94. Putter, Ad, and Judith Jefferson, eds. 2013. Multi- Taavitsainen, Irma, and Païvi Pahta, eds. 2004. lingualism in Medieval Britain (c. 1066–1520). Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medieval Turnhout: Brepols.