MS. Hatton 36

Provenance and Acquisition

This manuscript contains ample evidence of its ownership by Humfrey, Duke of Gloucester (1391–1447). The duke inscribed it several times, and three of his notes remain legible. At fol. 119v (the end of section A), he wrote his ex libris in black ink just below the end of the text: Cest livre est A moy homfrey duc de gloucestre du / don Maistre guillaume errard docteur en theologie cha/noyne notre dame de Rouen. / Loyale & belle Then, at the very top of the following recto, he wrote one of his mottoes in the same ink: Loyale & belle A gloucestre.

It would seem likely that these two inscriptions were written at the same time, telling us, in other words, that the Duke received the two fascicules together as one composite manuscript. (It is important to emphasize this as, in other cases, the repeated presence of his ex libris has been assumed to imply that Humfrey received its parts at different points or as separate fascicules: see, for example, London, BL, Royal MS 5 F. ii and Manchester, Chetham’s Library, MS. Mun. A. 3. 131. A similar assumption is perhaps behind the comments on the codicology of the present manuscript in F. Bérier, “Remarques sur le De lapsu et reparatione iustitie de Nicolas de Clamanges (vers 1360–1437) et sa traduction en français par Françoise Juret (1553–1626)”, Travaux de Littérature, iii (1990), pp. 25–39 at pp. 29–30, where he discerns three fascicules, dividing fascicule A into two after item 9; he does not note the continuous quire signatures running through items 1 to 27.) This is confirmed by the content of the third visible inscription. Similarly placed just below the end of the text, his ex libris is written in grayish ink at fol. 134v: Cest livre est A moy homfrey duc de gloucestre / du don Maistre guillaum erard docteur en theologie / chanoigne de Roan. There is no doubt about the last word of this inscription, but it has caused some confusion: Vickers, p. 426, read it as Ram, while Ullman [“Manuscripts of Duke Humphrey”, p. 352] suggested Paij, though he added that its reading was “uncertain.” Sammut read it correctly.

There are a further two inscriptions which are now nothing more than erasures. (Neither of these is noted by Sammut.) Following the end of item 9, there is a rewashed note at the top of the following verso (fol. 39v); it consists of two and a half lines which, under UV is certainly identifiable as Humfrey’s long ex libris, but its wording is irretrievable. Even less legible is the long note which occupies the top third of fol. 135v. This inscription was both scrapped away, leaving the surface fairly smooth, and later (in the first years of the seventeenth century) partially over-written. Viewed under UV, Humfrey’s script is visible; and, though no word can be discerned, the overall layout of the note suggests that this may have included a contents list, perhaps followed by a further ex libris . (DHL notes only that Loyale et belle occurs at this folio; though one line certainly begins with the letter L there is not enough visible to confirm such a reading and, what is more, the inscription is more extensive than just a motto.) Patently, this is one of those manuscripts in which Humfrey was keen both to leave marks of his ownership and to make the volume accessible by having its contents clearly noted. (On contents lists, see London, BL, Harley MS 3426 and Paris, BnF, MS. lat. 7805.)

Humfrey’s legible inscriptions are revealing, but what they can not tell us is whether he realized or was informed that this manuscript was an authorial copy. Clamanges showed attention to collecting, arranging and publishing what he termed his opuscula; this codex has been identified as one of his ‘authorized’ volumes, including both his minor works and the more substantial treatise, De lapsu iustitiae. (F. Bérier, “Note sur la datation, la tradition manuscrite et le contenu des dix orasions de l’humaniste Nicolas de Clamanges” in La Prière au Moyen-Age [Publications de CUER MA, Senefiance, x] (Aix-en-Provence, 1981), pp. 7–25 at p. 10 identifies three manuscripts as “les premiers exemplaires de l’édition des opuscules de l’humaniste”; these are the present manuscript, Bayeux, Bibliothèque Du Chapitre, MS. 4 and El Escorial, Real Biblioteca de San Lorenzo, MS. Q. III. 6 [on this last, see Antolín, Catálogo de los Códices Latinos, iii, pp. 416–418, and below, n.??]. In these manuscripts, Clamanges provides a set order for his works, which is often followed in later manuscripts, like London, BL, Add. MS 21918. On the issue more generally of Clamanges and his colleagues publishing their works, see G. Ouy, “Autographes calligraphés et Scriptoria d’humanistes en France vers 1400”, Bulletin Philologique et Historique (jusqu’à 1610) du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques, année 1963, vol. ii (Paris, 1966), pp. 891–898.) Nicolas de Clamanges himself not only transcribed much of the text, he also corrected the whole manuscript; indeed, it has been shown for one work, De Filio Prodigo [item 10], that Clamanges made, in Paris, BnF, MS. lat. 3626, a second autograph copy of the text including the revisions marked in this manuscript. (G. Ouy, “Ortographe et ponctuation dans les manuscrits autographes des humanistes français des xivᵉ et xvᵉ siècles” in A. Maierù ed., Grafia e Interpunzione del Latino nel Medioevo (Roma, 1987), pp. 167–206 at pp. 172 & 203–4; noted also at Ouy, “Manuscrits Autographes”, tav. ii. On this manuscript, see Catalogue Général, vi, pp. 382–383.) It has been suggested that these copies are close in date and that they were probably both produced around 1425. (Ouy, “Ortographe”, p. 203.) It is unclear, however, how soon after its production the manuscript presently under discussion left Clamanges’ hands.

The next definite point in the manuscript’s history is its donation to Humfrey by Guillaume Érard. Érard is best remembered for being one of the judges of Joan of Arc in 1431; but he was already in English service by 1429. Érard’s donation must date from after 17 July 1432 for that is when he was appointed canon of Rouen, the office by which Humfrey refers to him. It has also been suggested that this reference probably dates the gift to before 1435 when Érard became cantor of Rouen. (Chesney, “Nicolas de Clamanges: some supplementary bibliographical notes”, Medium Ævum, vii (1938), pp. 98–104 at p. 103.) The presence of the Loyale et belle motto would suggest that the book was inscribed by Humfrey certainly before his wife’s disgrace in 1441.

It is unclear how Érard himself came to hold this manuscript. He was certainly acquainted with Clamanges: both men had a connexion with the cathedral of Langres, and, of their correspondence, one letter from the author addressed to Érard in the language of amicitia, is printed and is datable to the beginning of the 1420s. (Lydius, ii, pp. 346–7 (written from Provins); it appears at Oxford, New College, MS. 128, fols 182v–183r. Érard’s title here is bachalarium in Theologia, providing a terminus post quem non of 1428 when he became M.Th. A date of around 1420 was suggested by P. Glorieux [“Notations biographiques sur Nicolas de Clémanges” in A. Duval ed., Mélanges offerts a M.-D. Chenu [Bibliothèque Thomiste, xxxvii] (Paris, 1967) pp. 291–310 at p. 309]; the same scholar dated the addition of this letter to Clamanges’ collected epistolary to around 1423 [ibid., p. 293].) Perhaps this manuscript formed part of the currency of their friendship and it was given to Érard by its author and scribe. Another possibility, however, is that Érard came to own it with the intention already in mind of parting with it as a donation: Érard, as an ambassador for the City of Paris, made an oration at the Parliament of 1432, over which Humfrey presided. (See Cambridge, Emmanuel College, MS. 9, fol. 123–128.) Might it be in this context that Érard presented a copy of the works of Paris’ premier scholar, a copy which opened with his letters written in the name of that city’s university? (If this were the case, the donation must have happened, at the earliest, on the Parliament’s last day, as it closed on the day that Érard was made a canon of Rouen.) If so, it would allow the possibility that Clamanges himself was complicit in the presentation; it would, then, provide a parallel to his production of an earlier manuscript of his opuscula for another prince, Alfonso V of Aragon. (That earlier manuscript is now El Escorial, Real Biblioteca de San Lorenzo, MS. Q. III. 6 which, however, is prefaced by a letter by Clamanges to the Aragonese king. The collection of opuscula is dated to 1414 / 1415 by F. Bérier, “Remarques sur l’évolution des idées politiques de Nicolas de Clamanges” in M. Ornato & N. Pons ed., Pratiques de la Culture Écrite en France au xvᵉ siècle (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1995), pp. 109–125 at p. 118, while this particular manuscript is dated to early 1418 by D. Cecchetti, “ ‘Florere-Deflorescere’: in margine ad alcuni temi del primo Umanesimo francese” in Mélanges à la mémoire de Franco Simone, i (Genève, 1980), pp. 143–155 at pp. 143–44.)

This was not the only manuscript of Clamanges’ works that Humfrey owned: in 1439, he gave to Oxford a volume, now lost, of the writer’s Epistolae (UO1.113 [Sammut, no. 113]), slightly longer, being in the 1444 gift to Oxford University: in the inventory, this volume is the ninety-fourth item, where it is called (misleadingly) Nicholai de Clamengiis Epistole and its verba probatoria misread as O vos. (UO3.94 [Sammut, no. 233]. The manuscript bears no other signs of the University’s ownership, like the marks of the chainstaple which appear in other volumes.) It is worth noting that Humfrey’s two volumes of Clamanges stand out in his gifts to Oxford; there is no parallel interest in Clamanges’ fellow scholars, Jean Gerson or Jean de Montreuil. While there is evidence for interest elsewhere in Oxford in the works of Clamanges, the present manuscript does not appear to have been transcribed and marginalia only reveals two fifteenth century readers –as we shall see, the evidence for sixteenth century attention is greater. (The fifteenth century readers are hands B and D; note also the early addition of a partial foliation. For other evidence of knowledge of Clamanges in fifteenth century Oxford, see Oxford, New College, MS. 128 (Clamanges, Epistolae & De lapsu iustitiae; France?, s. xv¹), a manuscript given to his old college by Richard Andrewe, while dean of York (i.e. 1454–1477) [on whom, see BRUO sub nomine ].) It is possible that the volume suffered the loss of its first leaf while the manuscript was still in Oxford: the author’s name was added at the top of fol. 2 in a script which may well date from early in the sixteenth century. (Hand A.) If the loss did occur during its time in Oxford, this could be accounted a sign of over-use, but is perhaps more likely to reflect neglect.

There is, of course, another explanation for the loss of that first folio that can not be excluded: that is, that it was removed by a later owner keen to obliterate signs of its earlier provenance. It was surely for that reason that two of Humfrey’s inscriptions were erased, though as the style of erasure was different in each case, it may be that they were undertaken at two separate points. As one of the inscriptions was (as has been mentioned) partially overwritten by its Jacobean owner (fol. 135v), we can be certain that it occurred before the end of the sixteenth century at the latest. Setting a terminus ante quem non for these erasures is more difficult: they must have occurred after the volume left the University Library, but the date of its departure is unclear. It has been claimed that the manuscript was still in situ when John Leland visited Oxford in the 1530s, as he mentions a volume of Epistole Nicolai de Clamenge cantoris Baiocensis. (DHL, p. 121 (following SC); Leland’s reference is printed at Sammut, p. 96, and reproduced at DHL, p. 120.) There is, however, reason to doubt this identification. If Leland was working just from a catalogue, it is possible that he is referring to the present manuscript – though, obviously, that would not mean that he himself had seen the volume – but, if the antiquary did see a volume, it is surely more likely that the one before him was that from Humfrey’s first gift which was indeed a volume of Clamanges’ letters. Leland’s reference to Clamanges as cantor Baiocensis would tend to support this conclusion, as the Epistolae in the present manuscript, which were not written in his own name, were composed before he received that office.

Another piece of evidence which has been cited as potential proof for this volume’s continuing presence in the Library is one set of sixteenth century annotations: the script of a group of notes written at one of the back flyleaves (fol. 136) and providing folio references to various topics has been equated with that of a short contents list at Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodl. 866, fol. iii verso. (DHL, pp. 40 & 80. On MS. Bodley 866, see DHL, no. 64.) As that latter manuscript, an eleventh century miscellany of patristic texts which once belonged to John Tiptoft, might also have been in the Library of Oxford University, it is tempting to infer that the same reader was studying both volumes before the demise of the Library. However, while the script of both sets of notes can be defined as italic, there is no certainty that the two sets are by the same hand: the palaeography of the notes in the present manuscript is much more flamboyant than the slightly awkward script in Tiptoft’s miscellany. (Note, in particular, in this manuscript, the extravagant slanted long ‘s’ descending below the line and the ‘g’ with its outsize bottom bowl placed to the right of the smaller upper bowl.) Indeed, the palaeography of the notes in this Clamanges manuscript suggests that they may date from the second half of the sixteenth century; indeed, they may well be in one of the scripts used by the later owner of the volume, Henry Holford.

However, another set of marginalia may provide a terminus post quem non for the manuscript’s departure from the Library. (This is hand C in the discussion below.) One reader whose annotations are concentrated in the last item appears to have been making notes at more than one sitting; his ability to return to the manuscript might suggest that it was actually in his possession. What is also significant is that one of the notes by this reader includes a contemporary allusion which dates it to roughly 1520–1535. The note itself is worth quoting in full; it appears at fol. 126: quod hoc predicat doctor / makrell canonicus albus / apud northampton.

The preacher referred to here is identifiable as Matthew Makkarell, a Gilbertine (White Canon) abbot who, from 1535, was a suffragan bishop of Lincoln; two years later he was executed for his role in the Pilgrimage of Grace. (On Makkarell, see DNB and Vynn.) As he is titled here doctor and not episcopus this might suggest that the reader heard a sermon by him at Northampton in the years before 1535. So, if it is assumed that this reader owned the manuscript, it would seem likely that it had already left the University Library by the mid-thirties.

The annotation just quoted hints at the intrinsic interest of this reader’s notes: they demonstrate how one early sixteenth century reader applied Clamanges’ dicta to current preoccupations. What is more, this reader was patently critical of the state of England: his reference to Doctor Makkarell is placed next to a passage in which Clamanges declares: Dico plane mihi videri plus iusticiae quantum ad executionem attinet in inferno esse quam in regno isto… In the Lydius edition, the passage occurs at p. 49.

At the same page (fol. 126), this reader picks out the term laeditur and comments: quanta mala proveniunt ex depopulatione. Depopulation is an issue he returns to again in later annotations, commenting for example quibus consulendum est pro depopulacionem against a section that talks about the advice of the rapacious (fol. 132v). (Lydius ed., p. 57.) In these cases, in truth, the reader’s responses seem less concerned to appreciate the text than to apply it to what he clearly perceived as the evils of enclosures. Nor was he the only reader to use this text in such a present-centred way: perhaps inspired by his predecessor’s marginalia, a late sixteenth century owner called Henry Holford also adds at fol. 126 his marginal comment: Anglia quoque hodierna die. (Hand E below, marking a passage decrying the lack of justice in France [Lydius ed., p. 49].)

The reference to one of the rebels of the Pilgrimage of Grace in these marginalia might suggest that the criticisms expressed were expressed from a religiously conservative. Clamanges, however, also had a favourable reputation with Protestants in the sixteenth century: witness the comment in the notes added to the front flyleaf of a copy of his letters in Oxford, New College, MS. 128, fol. 1v. Cf. the similar comment by John Bale cited at Lydius ed., sig. c 3: Nicolaus de Clamengijs … magnam eruditionis suae evidentiam dedit multa scripsit precipue vere contra corruptum ecclesiae statum claruit … It is not clear how, in this Protestant revisionism, devotional works like Clamanges’ set of prayers would be received; in this manuscript, a contents list written at the very end of the sixteenth century describes them with approbation as: Multe devote quam elegantes descriptae orationes (fol. 40). Perhaps this reader was himself a Catholic, for in his selective aide-memoire on significant passages, he includes: De Authoritate Papae (fol. 137v). On the other hand, another of the annotations made by this owner might suggest that confessional allegiances were not his primary concern. In one note (fol. 135v), he records: Regina Maria et Soror eius Elizabetha Regina Mortuae sunt. Sucusare Deum, fixasque reprendere sortes Desine, cum videas numina mors. No distinction here is drawn between Catholic and Protestant Tudor monarch.

The inscription just quoted is followed by the writer’s name: Henry Holford. Holford, who owned the book at the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, adds a wide range of notes through the manuscript. Some of his notes, which are written in a variety of scripts and at several different moments, provide more information about the history of the volume. In particular, at fol. 40, Holford follows his contents list (written in a secretary script) with an ownership note: Liber Henrici Holford de Longa Stanton / in Commitatu Cantabrigiae armigeri, ex / dono Domini Hugonis Wynnyngton in Sacra / theologia professoris.

This Hugh Winnington is an elusive figure: he does not appear to have been a professor from either of the English universities. All we can state for certain is that Winnington had given Holford this volume by 1599 at the latest, for at both fol. iii and fol. 1, the latter writes: Sum Henricj Holfordj Liber / 1599.

Holford later added a further ownership mark; at fol. 134v, he imitates the wording of Humfrey’s ex libris, writing just beneath it: Cest levre et[sic] a moy henry holford / de Long Stanton in le Countie de / Cambridge esquier & a ses assignes. / 1606.

As already mentioned, Holford’s annotations are not confined to these biographical notes. As well as the contents list at fol. 40 and a range of notes written in various scripts at the end flyleaves recording subject-matter and folio references (fol. 136–137v), Holford also adorns the manuscript with verses and aphorisms. So, at fol. iii, he writes: Ad(?) Christum crucifixum Oratio. Passe Deus: pro me tot vulnera, passe dolores innumeros: paenas probra flagella Crucem. Respice me nimia peccati mole gravatum, et misere humili voce precantis opem. Da dextram misero: de sordibus erue(?) tantis, In quibus immersum me mala vita tenet. // Ad finem ubi perueneris ne velis reverti. When thou commest to the ende, turne not backe agayne. When wee waxe old let us not desire in vayne to be yonge againe or oure life to begyn anon. but prepare oure selves for god & so for heaven. per publicam viam ne ambules. Henricus Holford Armiger. // Cum tumulum Cernis cur non mortalia spernis? Pax adsit vivis, requies aeterna sepultis.

Then, at the bottom of fol. 40, beneath his ownership inscription, he writes: Desceirae(?) domus est nostro de nomine dicta Holford, maiores sic me posuere penates. // Lactens aeternum vivat Leo numine dextro Holfordi si quid vota valere queant Sero carpat equus faelicis gramina saltus, Si Holfordi Superos flectere vota queant.

Finally, displaying uncharacteristic brevity, he writes at fol. 136v: Negociamini dum venio.

Some more information can be given on Holford. In a petition to Queen Elizabeth, he calls himself a farmer; he was a fairly significant landowner in Long Stanton, Cambridgeshire. (*PRO E 134 / 40Eliz / East13. The following biographical information is based on VCH Cambridgeshire, ix (London, 1989), pp. 197, 209, 226, 229.) His will was proved in 1617. His wife, Jean Shute, was herself the widow of John Hatton (d. 1587), and part of Holford’s lands were granted to his stepsons, the elder of whom was Sir Christopher Hatton (d. 1619).

The latter’s son was the antiquary and book-collector, Christopher Hatton, first Baron Hatton (1605–1670). Presumably, then, this manuscript passed into the book-collector’s hands while he owned the manor of Long Stanton, which he sold in 1633. (VCH Cambridgeshire, ix, pp. 223–224.)

The manuscript bears no sign that it received the attentions of Hatton or of those antiquaries in his circle like William Dugdale; perhaps this volume fell outside their area of interest, which was focussed on English history. Nor does it seem that the volume’s illustrious pedigree was noticed on its return to Oxford 1671, amongst those purchased by the Bodleian from the library of Hatton, who had died the previous year. (For the purchase of Hatton’s manuscripts, see SC. At fol. iii, there is an old shelfmark: Hatton 57. This is the number it also has in Bernard, where it is entered at I / i, no. 4082; there is no mention there of Humfrey’s ownership. What might be another, earlier shelfmark appears at fol. 137 in the manuscript; it dates from before Holford’s ownership and seems to read: 1191.) Indeed, the first modern reference to its provenance was printed in 1902. (Pietas Oxoniensis in Memory of Sir Thomas Bodley, Knt. and the Foundation of the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1902), p. 11n; this is commented on by SC, p. 833.) It was even later that the importance of this copy to scholars interested in Clamanges’ writings was recognized. (Chesney, “Nicolas de Clamanges”, p. 103 noted its early date; its identification as autograph was made by Gilbert Ouy, as discussed above.)