A catalogue of Western manuscripts at the Bodleian Libraries and selected Oxford colleges

MS. Hatton 36

Summary Catalogue no.: 4082

Nicolas de Clamanges, minor works and De lapsu iustitiae

Physical Description

Form: codex
Support: Thickish parchment, prepared so that there is a clear difference between the usually shiny skins-side and the suede-like hair-side (skin, hair-hair, skin-skin).
Extent: Folios: iv + 134 + v; both the first two front and the last three back flyleaves are paper (s. xix) added with the binding, while the remaining flyleaves are thick early parchment (s. xv?), with the outermost (ie. fol. iii and fol. 137v) of these bearing the impression of the former binding.
Dimensions: 243–249 × 168–174 mm.
Foliation: There are signs of two early foliations, both written in the top right corner; the first of these is fifteenth century, written lightly in grayish ink and sometimes erased, appearing now intermittently between fol. 3 and fol. 120. The second is late sixteenth century (in the hand of Henry Holford), written in black ink, but only appears from fol. 2 to fol. 59. These foliations begin with the first page of text, counting that as fol. 2. That folio is similarly numbered in the nineteenth century Bodleian foliation, written in pencil, also at the top right: 1–140, including last front flyleaf and all back flyleaves. This corrects the fifteenth century foliation by noting that the earlier numbering omits 77 (and thus from fol. 78 onwards was one greater than it should be). There are regularly imperfections to the parchment, often at the bottom right corner, with in one case the pricking following the curve of the edge (fol. 68; see also, e.g., fol. 27, 28, 42, 54, 55, 61, 62, 64, 108, 118, 119); a small rectangle at the bottom right corner of fol. 2 has also been removed. Moreover, there are occasionally tears in the parchment which were usually mended by sewing before the text was written (eg. fol. 14, 19, 26, 78 [text written around tear], 91, 113 [text written around the tear).

Collation

Quire of eight: i⁸ lacking first before fol. 2 ii–xv⁸ xvi⁶ xvii–xviii⁸. Simple horizontal catchwords placed for all but the last item about 10mm above the bottom edge, between the centre and the inner border; in item 28, the only catchword is placed about 15mm above the edge, to the right of the page, so that it ends at the inner border. There are leaf signatures in two separate series: items 1–27 have continuous signatures written very lightly at the bottom of the folio, just left of the outer border (e.g. fol. 4 = aiiii; fol. 18 = cii; fol. 52 = giiii; fol. 84 = liii; fol. 108 = oiii), while item 28 bears signs of signatures which re-begin the numbering, and are written in brown ink at the very right-hand side of the folio (fol. 123 = aiii[i]; fol. 129 = b[ii]).
Secundo Folio: [2] O nos vere; [3] vel habet
.

Decoration

Throughout the manuscript, simple filigree initials in blue and red open each item. There is only one initial in fascicule B, and this is in a design slightly different from those that precede it; it depicts a fleur-de-lys in red on a blue background, all within filigreework. (Pächt and Alexander i. p. 72)

Additions:

The majority of the pages bear signs of readers’ attention, but many of the marks are confined to crosses, marginalising lines or roughly drawn patterns. If we concentrate first on those who added notes in the margin, there are five. Hand A appears only once, adding the name of the author at the top of fol. 2 in a large humanist-influenced script, probably of the early sixteenth century. Hand B (fol. 55v–56v, 57v) is a late fifteenth century current script with hybrid features – note the ‘d’ with a triangular bowl and a sharply diagonal ascender; the 8-shaped ‘g’; ‘l’ with a looped ascender; long, straight ‘s’ (except at the end of the word) descending below the line – which is written in thick black ink and accompanied by an unsteady marginalising line. The most revealing is hand C, which is concentrated in – but not confined to – the last item; this reader who, to judge from the range of ink used, wrote his annotations at more than one sitting, writes in a thin, slightly shaky gothic script with some secretary elements that dates from the 1520s or 1530s. His comments notably relate the text to contemporary concerns [discussed below] (fol. 96 [ manicula only], 120–21, 126, 127, 129v, 130v, 131 [ manicula here perhaps by same hand but in different style], 132v–133). Hand D, an elegant tall, thin script of the fifteenth century, which also draws a small precise marginalising line, appears only once (fol. 121: Triplex bonum). Similarly, hand E, a slanted italic-influenced script of the second half of the sixteenth century in light brown ink writes only one note (fol. 126), but this reader is the most frequent of those adding a large cross in the margin. Moreover, this reader, who also writes notes at the front and back flyleaves in a range of scripts is identifiable as the late sixteenth century owner of the manuscript, Henry Holford (note the similarity of ‘-que’ abbreviation at fol. 126 and in the signed note at fol. 135v).

Of the non-verbal marginalia, one of the more frequent is a changeable pattern written in pencil (squiggle §: eg fol. 12v–13, 14, 15, 18r–v etc). Other marks include a ‘flower’-like nota mark with three dots which appears twice (fol. 25v, 26), and a small manicula with an erased note introduced by a flag-mark (fol. 92v; cf. fol. 93v).

Binding

Nineteenth-century binding of boards covered with red material as well as brown leather corners and spine; at bottom left of the inside of the back board, there is a note reading: W 3–9–64. This presumably provides the date of this binding as September 1864.

History

Origin: 15th century, first half ; France

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.)

MS. Hatton 36, fols 2–119

Contents

Language(s): Latin

Nicolaus de Clamengiis, Epistolae sub nomine Univerisitatis Parisiensis

These epistles form a set, all being written in 1394 in his role as rédacteur of the University of Paris, and on the subject of the Schism.

1. (fol. 2–13v)
Epistola sub nomine Univerisitatis Parisiensis ad Carolum VI Franciae Regem (6 June 1394)
Incipit: ||O nos vere tali rege fortunatos
Explicit: (fol. 13v) proxime navicula teneamus.

Printed in C. Du Boulay, Historia Universitatis Parisiensis [6 vols (Paris, 1665–1673)], iv (Paris, 1668), pp. 687–696; also edited, in part, (without reference to this copy) in H. Denifle ed., Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis [4 vol.s (Paris, 1889–1897), iii (Paris, 1894), pp. 617–625.

2. (fol. 13v–15)
Epistola sub nomine Univerisitatis Parisiensis ad Papam Clementem VII (17 July 1394)
Rubric: Secunda epistola ad dominum clementem septimum romanum / pontificem trium superiorum viarum insinuativa ad ecclesiasticam/que pacem horativa. Ubi etiam de turbatoribus fit conquestio.
Incipit: Coegit tandem nos pater beatissime christi fides
Explicit: (fol. 15) maiori diligentia vigilaveritis.

Printed in Du Boulay, Historia, iv, pp. 699–700; edited (without reference to this copy) in Denifle ed., Chartularium, iii, pp. 631–633, and again (and similarly without reference to this copy) in A. Combes, Jean de Montreuil et le Chancelier Gerson [Études de Philosophie Médiévale, xxxii] (Paris, 1942), pp. 630–633.

3. (fol. 15r–17v)
Epistola sub nomine Univerisitatis Parisiensis ad Papam Clementem VII (22 September 1394)
Rubric: Tercia epistola ad eundem dominum clementem in qua apud eum fit / conquestio quod epistolam superiorem venenosam appellavit.
Incipit: (fol. 15v) Paucis abhinc pater beatissime diebus exactis
Explicit: (fol. 17v) cathedra ociosam sedisse.

Printed (with textual differences) in Du Boulay, Historia, iv, pp. 701–703; also edited (without reference to this copy) in Denifle ed., Chartularium, iii, pp. 634–636.

4. (fol. 17v–19)
Epistola sub nomine Univerisitatis Parisiensis ad Prelatos Franciae
Rubric: Quarta epistola ad capitula cathedralium ecclesiarum regni francie / in qua ad pacem ecclesie cum ipsa universitate procura{i}nda admo/ventur et ad publicas preces ac processiones super hoc agendas.
Incipit: Iustum erat venerabiles domini fratresque
Explicit: (fol. 19) hominibus bone voluntatis.

Printed in Du Boulay, Historia, iv, pp. 712–713.

5. (fol. 19–20)
Epistola sub nomine Univerisitatis Parisiensis ad Universitatem Coloniensem
Rubric: Quinta epistola ad magistros & doctores studij coloniensis in qua / ad eorum litteras respondet universitas parisiensis.
Incipit: Litteras magistri venerabilis vestra nobis ex parte
Explicit: (fol. 20) et intelligentias vestras.

Printed (with verbal differences) in Du Boulay, Historia, iv, pp. 704–705; also edited, in part, (without reference to this copy) in Denifle ed., Chartularium, iii, pp. 629–630.

6. (fol. 20–21v)
Epistola sub nomine Univerisitatis Parisiensis ad Cardinalium Collegium
Rubric: Sexta epistola ad collegium cardinalium post nunciatam mortem / domini clementis transmissa in qua cogantur ut a nova / supersedeant electione donec sit alterius partis voluntas / explorata.
Incipit: Etsi firmam reverendissimi patres animo spem
Explicit: (fol. 21v) properantius eligendo ingesserunt.

Printed (with textual differences) in Du Boulay, Historia, iv, pp. 711–712.

7. (fol. 21v–23:)
Epistola sub nomine Univerisitatis Parisiensis ad Iohannem Aragoniae Regem
Rubric: Septima epistola ad iohannem regem aragonie responsoria / ad eius litteras cum gratiarum actione et ad constanter pro / unione laborandum cohortatoria.
Incipit: Gratissimas regalis vestre magnificentie princeps
Explicit: (fol. 23) ecclesieque restitutam viderimus.

Printed (with textual differences) in Du Boulay, Historia, iv, pp. 719–720.

8. (fol. 23–26)
Epistola sub nomine Univerisitatis Parisiensis ad Papam Benedictum XIII
Rubric: Octava epistola ad dominum Benedictum terciumdecimum ad romani / pontificatus apicem recenter electum. Ad vigilanter pro ecclesia/stica unitate laborandum vehementer exhortatus.
Incipit: Quamquam pater beatissime quando ad nos primum
Explicit: (fol. 26) exitumque feliciter terminet.

Printed in Du Boulay, Historia, iv, pp. 713–715.

9. (fol. 26–39)
Epistola sub nomine Univerisitatis Parisiensis ad Papam Benedictum XIII
Rubric: Nona epistola ad eundem benedictum de commendatione atque / extollentia vie cessionis voluntarie super universas alias / inutilis ex causis ac radicibus non alias vias improbando / alias oblatas sed factu atque executione difficiles ostendendo.
Incipit: Sanctissimo in christo patri domino Benedicto celesti providentia sancte romane ecclesie summo pontifici. Devota sue beatitudinis filia universitas
Explicit: (fol. 39) oportuerat altiori voce.

Printed (in incomplete form and with textual differences) in Du Boulay, Historia, iv, pp. 740–747.

(fol. 40)

blank

10. (fol. 41–51v)
Nicolaus de Clamengiis, De filio prodigo
Rubric: Incipit liber de filio prodigio per Nicolaum de clamengiis / cantorem baiocensem compositus.
Incipit: Audite o penitentes sermonem de fratre vestro
Explicit: (fol. 51v) perierat et inventus est.

Printed in Nicolai de Clemangiis Catalaunesis, Archidiaconi Baiocensis, Opera omnia, ed. I. M. Lydius (Leiden, 1613) [reprinted Farnborough, 1967], part i, pp. 109–121. The Lydius edition of this and the following items (11 to 13 and 15) states its source to be ex bibliotheca S. Victoris, thus suggesting the manuscript used was Paris: Bnf, MS. lat. 14905 [on which, see G. Ouy, Les Manuscrits de L’Abbaye de Saint Victor, 2 vol.s (Turnhout, 1999), ii, pp. 329–331].

11. (fol. 51v–60v)
Nicolaus de Clamengiis, De fructu heremi (to Radulphus de Porta)
Rubric: Incipit liber de fructu heremi N. de clamengiis Ad Ra de porta
Incipit: Doceri per me desideras qui ita in solitudinibus
Explicit: (fol. 60v) odorifere expers fragrantie.

Printed in Nicolai de ClemangiisOpera omnia, i, pp. 121–132.

12. (fol. 60v–70)
Nicolaus de Clamengiis, De fructu rerum adversarum
Rubric: Incipit liber de prosperitate adversitatis N. de clamengiis.
Incipit: Cum maxime predicatoris officium sit et prosperis
Explicit: (fol. 70) omnis iniquitas opilabit os suum.

Printed in Nicolai de Clemangiis … Opera omnia, i, pp. 132–143.

13. (fol. 70–86v)
Nicolaus de Clamengiis, De novis celebritatibus non instituendis
Rubric: Incipit liber N. de clamengiis de novis festivitatibus.
Incipit: Non puto conveniens esse quod cum
Explicit: (fol. 86v) tali suspicione carentia cohortari.

Printed in Nicolai de Clemangiis … Opera omnia, i, pp. 143–160.

14. (fol. 86v–100v)
Nicolaus de Clamengiis, De studio theologico (to Johannes Pedemontius)
Rubric: Incipit liber de studio theologico N. de clamengiis Ad io. ^de pede montium^
Incipit: Non fuit animus vir diserte quando ad tuam
Explicit: (fol. 100v) doctum minus fuerit explicatum.

Printed in L. d’Achery, S. Baluze et al. ed., Spicilegium sive Collectio veterum aliquot Scriptorum… (Paris, 1723), i, pp. 473–480.

F. Bérier, “La figure du clerc dans le De Studio Theologico de Nicolas de Clamanges”, Travaux de Linguistique et de Littérature, xxi (1983), pp. 79–103 at p. 81 dates this work to the period 1410–1415.

15. (fol. 100v–106)
Nicolaus de Clamengiis, De praesulibus Symoniacis
Rubric: Incipit tractatus brevis contra prelatos symoniacos.
Incipit: Multa michi in presulibus nostris hodiernis
Explicit: (fol. 106) nisi tu hoc facias.

Printed in Nicolai de Clemangiis … Opera omnia, i, pp. 160–166.

16. (fol. 106–110)
Nicolaus de Clamengiis, De morte duorum amantium Floridiani et Elvidis
Rubric: Incipit descriptio rei cuiusdam mira/bilis que in gallijs accidisse ferebatur.
Incipit: Rem recenti uti accipio eventu gestam
Explicit: (fol. 110) veniam nequaquam abnuisse.

Printed in J. Hommey ed., Supplementum Patrum (Paris, 1685), pp. 508–518, this tale is discussed by A. Coville, Recherches sur quelques Écrivains du xivᵉ et du xvᵉ siècle (Paris, 1935), pp. 208–215.

17. (fol. 110–113)
Nicolaus de Clamengiis, Sermo de sanctis Innocentibus
Rubric: Incipit sermo. N. de clamengiis de sanctis innocentibus.
Incipit: Nota est tiranni herodis nolo enim regem dicere
Explicit: (fol. 113) confessores efficiat Ihesus christus dominus noster qui cum patre et spiritu sancto vivit et regnat unus deus in secula seculorum. AMEN.

Unprinted, this sermon is discussed by F. Bérier, “L’humaniste, le prêtre et l’enfant mort: le sermon ‘De Sanctis Innocentibus’ de Nicolas de Clamanges” in L’Enfant au Moyen-Age [Publications du CUER MA, Senefiance, ix] (Aix-en-Provence, 1980), pp. 123–140, noting this as one of three autograph copies, the other two being: Bayeux, Bibliothèque du Chapitre, MS. 4, fol. 88–90v and Paris, BnF, MS. lat. 16403 [on these, see Catalogue Général: Departments, x, pp. 299–301, and Iter, iii, p. 263b]. Other copies are to be found at, for example, London, BL, Add. MS 21918, and Paris, BnF, MSS. lat. 3129, fol. 265–66v & 3132A, fol. 88v–91 [Catalogue Général, iii, pp. 200, 206].

Nicolaus de Clamengiis, Orationes
18. (fol. 113–114)
Rubric: Oratio quedam ad deum.
Incipit: Deus deus meus respice in me quare me dereliquisti: immo quare ego
Explicit: (fol. 114) adhesione persistam qui in omnia secula vivis et regnas benedictus Amen.

This and the following nine prayers (i.e. items 18 to 27) are edited in this order (on the basis of Paris, BN, MSS. lat. 3129, fol. 288–291 & 3132A, fol. 91–95v, and without reference to this manuscript) by J. Leclercq, “Les Prières inédites de Nicolas de Clamanges”, Revue d’Ascétique et de Mystique, xxiii (1947), pp. 171–183, with this prayer at pp. 174–5. For comment on Leclercq’s edition, see 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; he dates the composition of these prayers to within the period 1408–1417.

19. (fol. 114–115)
Rubric: Alia oratio.
Incipit: Erravit domine ovis misera ovis morbida
Explicit: (fol. 115) benignitate largiri dignare. Amen.

Edited (without reference to this copy) by Leclercq, “Les Prières inédites”, pp. 175–76.

20. (fol. 115r–v)
Rubric: Oratio preambula ad canonicum servitium septem horarum / dicenda a uno ecclesiastico priusquam horas ipsas incipiat.
Incipit: Septies in hac die laudem dicam tibi domine memor operum tuorum magnorum
Explicit: (fol. 115v) benedictione implere digneris.

Edited (without reference to this copy) by Leclercq, “Les Prières inédites”, p. 177.

21. (fol. 115v–116v)
Rubric: Oratio excitatoria ad surgendum hora matutinali pro ma/tutino officio in ecclesia vel alibi persolvendo.
Incipit: Expergiscere o anima mea expergiscere hora est
Explicit: (fol. 116v) lucis gaudia pervenire. AMEN.

Edited (without reference to this copy) by Leclercq, “Les Prières inédites”, pp. 178–79.

22. (fol. 116v–117)
Rubric: Oratio dicenda ante horam primam.
Incipit: Da michi domine hora prima huius diei
Explicit: (fol. 117) scandalo transire concedat.

Edited (without reference to this copy) by Leclercq, “Les Prières inédites”, pp. 179–80.

23. (fol. 117r–v)
Rubric: Oratio dicenda ante horam tertiam.
Incipit: Domine qui hora diei tercia spiritum sanctum
Explicit: (fol. 117v) pre oculis habentem.

Edited (without reference to this copy) by Leclercq, “Les Prières inédites”, p. 180.

24. (fol. 117v–118)
Rubric: Oratio dicenda ante hora[sic] sextam.
Incipit: Deus virtutum fortis et potens
Explicit: (fol. 118) salvus evadere.

Edited (without reference to this copy) by Leclercq, “Les Prières inédites”, p. 181.

25. (fol. 118r–v)
Rubric: Oratio dicenda ante horam novam.
Incipit: Deus scientiarum domine in quo sunt
Explicit: (fol. 118v) lege tua docueris eum.

Edited (without reference to this copy) by Leclercq, “Les Prières inédites”, pp. 181–82.

26. (fol. 118v–119)
Rubric: Oratio ad verspertinum servitium.
Incipit: Deus fons et origo totius pietatis
Explicit: (fol. 119) claritatis semper illustret.

Edited (without reference to this copy) by Leclercq, “Les Prières inédites”, pp. 182–83.

27. (fol. 119r–v)
Rubric: Oratio dicenda ante complectorium circa solis occasum.
Incipit: Ecce iam solis occubitus noctem adesse
Explicit: (fol. 119v) in ore meo perseveret. AMEN.

Edited (without reference to this copy) by Leclercq, “Les Prières inédites”, p. 183.

Physical Description

Layout

174 × 113 mm. ; 32 long lines, above top line. Fully ruled, with single border, except that there is a double horizontal border at the top; frequent signs of full pricking in outer margin, with two prick-holes in line with the vertical borders at very bottom of page.

Hand(s)

Written throughout in dark brown ink in one large, distinctive gothic book-hand identified as one of the scripts employed by Nicolas de Clamanges [Ouy, “Manuscrits Autographes”, tav. ii]. The script has been described as a “minuscule gothique assez archaïsante” [Ouy, loc. cit .] but its aspect and canon of letter-forms lack the experimentation with littera antiqua features that have been noted in other manuscripts written by Clamanges [on which, see G. Ouy, “Nicolas de Clamanges (ca. 1360–1437). Philologue et calligraphe: imitation de l’Italie et réaction anti-italienne dans l’écriture d’un humaniste français au début du XVᵉ siècle” in J. Autenrieth ed., Renaissance- und Humanistenhandschriften (München, 1988), pp. 31–50]. For example, the ‘a’ here is resolutely double-bowled, with its head rising above the height of the minims; the ‘d’ is always curve-backed with a single bowl; the ‘r’ sometimes takes the short ‘z’-shaped form, though it is more often upright with a rounded foot; the ‘s’ also takes two usual forms: unless at the end of a word, it is long with a simple structure, having a small curved head and curved foot of equal size; final ‘s’ is nearly always short and double-bowled, though occasionally at the end of the line justification is achieved by forming it with one open stroke that tails away at the line (fol. 77, ll. 30 & 32). The aspect of the script is fairly regular, with the emphasis on thick strokes, on short ascenders and descenders, and on closely packed letters, with frequent biting; a repeated feature is the addition, passim , of thin diagonal strokes which serve three purposes: first, they provide a flourishing bifurcation to the ascenders of ‘b, h’ and ‘l’; second, they are always used to ‘dot’ the ‘i’; third, they regularly perform the function of a hyphen, marking the split of a word at the line-end.

Throughout this section of the manuscript, Clamanges also makes corrections and additions, both by erasing and rewriting and words and by adding phrases in the bottom margin (introduced by a range of signes de renvoi ). In the marginalia, he employs two scripts: the first has been described as “influencée par l’humanistique” [Ouy, “Manuscrits Autographes”, tav. ii] and it is certainly less distant than the text itself from his ‘italianising’ experiments, especially with its tall straight ascenders, but its orthography remains predominantly gothic (see, for example, the ‘g’ which lacks the spikiness of the book-hand but is still formed of two conjoined bowls: fol. 4v, 10 etc; the final ‘s’ on occasion is formed by one stroke descending below the line – eg. fol. 35v, 48v, 58–but is most often double-bowled: fol. 4v, 8v, 10, 41, 56, 58, 71; other examples of such marginalia occur at: fol. 11, 35v, 48v, 81v, 99, 101, 112v). It is this script that also adds corrections on or between the lines (eg. fol. 3, 6, 10, 11v, 12, 14, 22v, 28, 55v etc). The second script is a clear French secretary book-hand, with a single-bowled ‘a’, a loop on the ascender of the ‘l’, and a slanted, shaded long ‘s’ (fol. 72, 73v).

Clamanges also adds the rubricated titles to each of the articles in this fascicule.

MS. Hatton 36, fols 120–135

Contents

Language(s): Latin

28. (fol. 120–134v)
Nicolaus de Clamengiis, De lapsu et reparatione Iustitiae
Rubric: Incipit liber de lapsu et reparatione iusticie ad illustrem / et serenissimum principem philippum ducem Burgundionum.
Incipit: Iam dudum princeps illustris ante annos
Explicit: (fol. 134v) medullam norunt elicere.

Printed in Nicolai de Clemangiis … Opera omnia, i, pp. 41–53. The text is presented here without the letter of dedication to Philip of Burgundy (inc: Fama tuae virtutis celeberrimae…).

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 dates this work to 1419–1420.

(fol. 135)

blank

Physical Description

Layout

176 × 111 mm. ; 32 long lines, below top line. Fully ruled, with single border, the vertical and top horizontal borders extending to the edge of the page but the bottom horizontal stopping at the point of the vertical borders; throughout, the full pricking in the outer margin is visible, with two prick-holes in line with the vertical borders placed about 10mm above the bottom of the page.

Hand(s)

Written between the lines in lightish brown ink in one gothic book-hand. There are generic similarities with the script of section A, but the script in this section is more calligraphic, with a tendency to more complex letter-formation. The minims usually turn to the right, especially at the end of words; descenders are short but reach down to the line, while ascenders are notably short and have small bifuractions (less strident than those in section A). Of particular letters: the ‘a’ takes two forms, the more frequent being a rather square double-bowled letter, similar to that in fascicule A, but there also appears here a construction with a large lower bowl and an upper lip which a thin diagonal stroke closes into a triangular upper-bowl (cf. fol. 129v, line 3 etc); the ascender to the ‘d’ is confined to a whisp that hardly rises above the head of the minims; the ‘g’ is formed with a large upper bowl with beneath it a small loop closed by a thin diagonal stroke; and while ‘s’ at the start or middle of words is tall, but with a ‘v’-shaped foot, the final ‘s’ is double-bowled, each bowl being lozenge-shaped. The same script is used for the rubricated title at the opening of the item.

The differences between this script and that of fascicule A would allow this to be by a scribe other than Clamanges, but even if this is the case, the author is still present in this section of the manuscript, providing interlinear corrections in his hand (fol. 121v, 124v, 127, 128, 129v, 131, 132v, 134v) [these corrections, and the possibility that this section is not transcribed by the author, are noted 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].

Additional Information

Record Sources

Description by David Rundle; edited by Andrew Dunning (March 2025). Previously described:

Digital Images

Digital Bodleian (5 images from 35mm slides)

Bibliography

    Online resources:

    Pietas Oxoniensis in Memory of Sir Thomas Bodley, Knt. and the Foundation of the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1902), p. 11n
    K. Chesney, “Nicolas de Clamanges: some supplementary bibliographical notes”, Medium Ævum, vii (1938), pp. 98–104 at pp. 102–3
    Sammut, pp. 113–114 [no. 23]
    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
    G. Ouy, “Ortographe et ponctuation dans les MSS autographes des humanistes français des XIVᵉ et XVᵉ siècles” in A. Maierù ed., Grafia e interpunzione del Latino nel medioevo (Roma, 1984), at pp. 172, 203–4
    DHL, no. 36
    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. 26–27 and 29–30
    G. Ouy, “Manuscrits autographes d’humanistes en Latin et en Français” in P. Chiesa & L. Pinelli ed., Gli Autografi Medievali (Spoleto, 1994), pp. 269–306 at p. 302 and tav. ii.

Last Substantive Revision

2025-03-10: Entry by David Rundle.