2 GheSsdhO T4eT Ε

|
 i tn netics ii inti tiatintin niin tii in iti inti tin tn nt tit |
Fr
>
»
>
}
> Coronto Cinibersity Library.
>
>
>
>
> PRESENTED BY
>
>
>
>
4
The University of Cambridge
>
>
> through the Committee formed in
"
|p
>
> the Old Country
>
>
>
> loss caused by the Disastrous Fire
>
> ruary the 14th, 1890.
>
»
>
Di te ttt tt ttm tet tr ttt tte
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/originofleicesteOOharruoft
NEW TESTAMENT.
Ἑ
~ .
 ε
The See
i i
Pa a =. §
“ " τ. Ψ

Qondon: C. J. CLAY AND 50Ν8, ὁ τ 45.

Jee GTS Ὁ ae
' CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
i é ἢ a
: ἣνnt
AVE MARIA LANE. iL - $s

Cambridge: DEIGHTON, BELL AND co. 1

ΡΣ δου τς ‘i er
Leipjig: F. A. BROCKHAUS. si
7 >
7 4 4
.
b
 wie ORIGIN

OF THE

LEICESTER CODEX
OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT.

BY
Sm
N ov

}” RENDEL HARRIS,
“wh
M.A.
FELLOW OF CLARE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
AND
PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LANGUAGES IN HAVERFORD COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA.

LONDON:
. C. J. CLAY AND SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.
1887
[All Rights reserved]
 υ eM E S
τὰ ! = me

\3δ =
a,
* : ᾿ 3 °

; CAMBRIDGE: | ᾿
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A, AND SONS,
PRESS,
AT THE UNIVERSIT Y

Ἵ . ‘ ν᾽ i
+
. "]

4
5
),
ᾷ
,
x . «
ὁ ἢ ;
ἢ i
‘ εἴ ;
y a
Ve -
* a 2

nd
; »}
>
“-

ΘΝ,
2 ,

’
> .
-
? :
P

*
.
-

ὼς, δ

-
γ

ὧν ἢ Le
“ 2
al
at - Ἂ
ay
ὡ- ~~
- Ὃ

.
=
 INTRODUCTION.

Ir is at first sight not a little curious to the person who com-

mences the critical study of the documents of the New Testament
to find that he can discover no settled proportion between the age
of a manuscript and the weight attached to it. It is true that the
best editors seem to have agreed in arriving (often by different
roads) at the conclusion that the earliest text is to be found in the
main in the earliest codices, but they seldom seem to enunciate
this as a fixed principle of criticism, and even when their results
are such as would flow with comparative ease from such. an as-
sumption, we find that we are not permitted to infer that any
such empirical method has been employed by them when their
critical apparatus shews that they have given in many cases an
almost equal weight to some of the youngest MSS. which exist.
A little study, however, soon convinces the tyro of the impossi-
bility of determining any law by which the value of a codex can
be expressed in terms of its age only without reference to its
history, and leads him to expect occasional eccentric distributions
of authority which may make the first of two codices to be the
last, and conversely. ° Perhaps no more striking instance of this can
be found than in the pre-eminence given to the Leicester Codex
of the New Testament over the vast number of MSS. written in
the cursive hand and the greater part even of those written in the
uncial character.
A reference to the critical apparatus of Tregelles’ New Testa-.
ment will shew that along with those uncial MSS. upon which he
bases his text he makes use of readings from three MSS. denoted
(after the usual custom for cursives) by the numbers 1, 33, 69. .
LC I
[Ὁ] INTRODUCTION.

The last of these figures stands for the readings of a copy of

the Gospels preserved amongst the muniments of the borough of
Leicester which cannot, by any paleographic reasoning, be made
out as earlier than the fourteenth century and may conceivably be
later than the invention of printing. By what law of probability,
we ask ourselves, does this peculiar MS., this ‘All-hallown Summer,’
derive an importance so out of keeping with its juvenility? I think
we must admit that in one direction the Leicester Codex has ac-
quired a factitious importance from the repeated scrutiny to which
it has been subjected: critics are well aware that this copy is one
of a group of four (the youngest of them), which are now known
to be derived from a common lost original, perhaps uncial, though
equally likely to be cursive, but in any case of great critical
importance. But no one of the group has been the matter of
such careful enquiry as the Leicester Codex. The other three are
located respectively at Paris (Cod. 13), Milan (Cod. 346) and Vienna
(Cod. 124), and the Paris copy in particular is suspected of being
the almost immediate ancestor of the Leicester copy, and there-
fore of sufficient importance to put the latter entirely into the
shade; but the Leicester MS. drew attention first, for the simple
reason that it was accessible to English scholars who in the
earliest days of New Testament study did the greater part of
the hard work and have not yet altogether relinquished the
position in New Testament criticism which naturally falls to the
lot of a religious people.
Scholar after scholar has turned its pages, of whose work notes
and memoranda may be found on the fly-leaves and margins.
Tregelles, Dobbin, Scrivener and Burgon have attempted to com-
plete the sporadic collations. made by Mill, Jackson and others;
add to these the names of Richard Smyth, M.A., Professor of
Oriental Literature, London, whose name appears at the end of
the book as having collated it in September, 1866, Dr C. R.
Gregory and myself, and some idea may be formed of the
zealous attention bestowed upon the text.
But if the importance thus given seem a little artificial and
 INTRODUCTION. 3

unduly proportional to the number of readers (although those

who work on these lines will, I think, incline to the opinion that
one good text collated thoroughly is really worth more than
many better texts known imperfectly) we must add that there
are other reasons why this MS. should be made the material
for further study and closer scrutiny.
To begin with, there has lately been issued by M. Il’Abbé
Martin a remarkable tract in textual criticism’ dealing precisely
with the very group of which the Leicester Codex is so dis-
tinguished a member, and shewing with a high degree of
probability the direction in which their lost original must have
lain and where it may perhaps yet be found.
It is true that M. Martin does not endorse altogether the
arguments for the common origin of the four codices, but he
does what amounts to much the same thing, by demonstrating
that three out of the four have common internal and paleographic
peculiarities which locate them all in Calabria or perhaps Sicily,
so that they are either MSS. which have absorbed common
local oddities of text, or are the common descendants of an
eccentric Calabrian ancestor. These points M. Martin essays to
establish from actual notes made by him on the copies in Paris,
Vienna, and Milan. He does even more, he addsto the group
a fifth and perhaps a sixth MS, which has close textual relations
with them, and points out directions in which the - important
genealogical relations that subsist between what I suppose he
would call the Calabrian family may be made a matter of more
extended study by the search after fresh copies of a similar type.
Now it is not my intention in the following pages to either
approve or contradict in detail the Abbé’s conclusions; it is
quite likely that he is correct in tracing the three copies to a
Calabrian origin: I believe Dr Hort has arrived at something of
the same conclusion by the direct comparison of the readings
of the so-called Ferrar-group with the recently-recovered Codex
Rossanensis: and certainly I can have no objection to the
1 Quatre manuscrits importants, ? ἄς. Paris. -Maisonneuve.
4 INTRODUCTION.
extension of the group which, it is no rash prediction to say, is
much wider in numbers and diffusion than Professor Ferrar
suspected when he made his comparison of the four members
of the group, or the Abbé Martin when he made his recent
paleographical studies in the libraries where these books are
preserved. In fact, unless I am much mistaken, a MS. upon
which I have recently spent a good deal of time in England,
and which, I believe, demonstrably came in the first instance
from Constantinople, is nothing else than a member of the same
group in which the peculiarities have been worn down by the
insertion of readings from the commonly-received texts. I refer
to Cod. 561 of the Gospels. But of this more in another place.
Nor is there much fear that the conclusions arrived at by
Professor Ferrar will be seriously invalidated by the theory of
local peculiarities; no eccentricities belonging to scribes of a
given region would suffice to explain the fact that four MSS.
agree to spell the word Μωυσῆς in one way at a given point
and three’ verses after agree to change the spelling to Μωσῆς
(Luke ix. 30).
What does come to the front in connexion with the Abbé’s
researches is that the time has arrived when some attempt should
be made to extract from the Leicester Codex (which is the one
member of the group not studied by him) an account of its history,
and to determine whether any light can be thrown upon its gene-
alogical relations to the other MSS. of the New Testament which
are known to us. Something of this kind is attempted in the
following pages; and I think it will be found that not only the
Leicester Codex will be better understood through these investi-
gations, but a good deal of fresh information is accumulated of
importance to the paleographer, especially in reference to Greek
MSS. produced or circulated in England in the period immediately
preceding the invention of printing, —
Nor should it be ‘forgotten that there is something to be
learned from the relations of the Leicester Codex to contem-
porary or later MSS. where these relationships can in any degree
 INTRODUCTION. 5

be traced. If the Leicester Codex is an example of a copy

whose readings claim an attention deservedly far above what we
should have expected from so late a codex, there is another MS.
of even later date which has acquired a historical importance,
chiefly by the accidental circumstance that it contained a passage
fabricated to order in the first great dispute of the editors of the
Greek Testament, the verse known as the ‘Three Heavenly
Witnesses.’ .
This MS., the Codex Montfortianus of Mill, the Codex Britan-
nicus of Erasmus, has been the subject of one very important
(though hardly complete) work by Dobbin; and we are still far
from knowing yet~all that we ought to know with regard to its
origin and composition. What we do know about it in certain
directions, such as the fact that it once belonged to the same owner
as the Leicester Codex, by whom readings were. transferred
from the latter to the margin of the former, and the suspicion
almost amounting to certainty that in the Apocalypse the Montfort
Codex is an actual copy of the Leicester MS., leads us to the belief
that any enquiry which touches on the one MS. will be likely to
throw light indirectly upon the circumstances of the production of
the other. And such researches, though made upon a manuscript
that is textually of little worth, are not to be undervalued, if we
remember the way in which we are constantly brought to the con-
clusion that in studying any of the New Testament documents our
results are more likely to be ultimately fruitful beyond their im-
mediate application than the contrary.
: er Re
 THE ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT.

I. The roi ὃ of the Leicester Codex.

Beyonp the speculative relation of the Leicester MS. to the

important Paris cursive (==Cod. 13 of the Gospels) which was
suggested by Professor Ferrar, and the relationship in the matter
of a common owner and partial direct pedigree between it and
the Montfort Codex (the former of which points will be noticed
later on more carefully, while the latter is a statement of Dr
Barrett, followed by Dr Dobbin though denied by Dr Scrivener
in part), the MS. gives but little clue by which we may
prosecute our search after its origin and affinities. Its handwriting’
is so peculiar that it has hitherto been without a companion in
paleographical description; the paper upon which it is written (at
least in part) is not easily matched, and the pen seems to have
been either so badly made or so strangely held that Dr
Scrivener has given it as his opinion that the instrument was
in reality a reed. When we turn from the writing to the text
itself, we find no subscriptions, prefaces, stichometry, scribe’s
verses, internal divisions or appendices (beyond one or two pieces
to be referred to later on), which can help us to trace or
locate the text,
However, we are in the position to make some remarks as
to the nature of the handwriting, and to raise suspicions as to
the school to which it belongs, as well as to point out another
important codex written by the very same hand, and from this
point we shall have plain sailing for a good way towards the
point that we want to reach.
δὶ, ν᾽ ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

Now in reference to the handwriting, Scrivener speaks of it

in too depreciating language. “It is written,” says he, “in the
coarse and strange hand which our facsimile exhibits, epsz/on
being recumbent and almost like a/pha, and the whole style of
writing resembling a careless scrawl.” Concerning this criticism
I find that in my first visit to the MS. in September, 1884,
I noted on the margin of the above quotation (/utrod. N. T.
p. 190) that Scrivener’s facsimile in this Introduction gives a
very inadequate idea of the writing. The same is true of the
facsimile in Cod. Augtensis. This remark may be verified upon
the photographs of the MS. presented in the present book.
Strange the writing may be, but coarse it is not; and to call
it a careless scrawl is to do the scribe a great injustice: he
probably wrote fast and freely, but not without a certain degree
of elegance. Professor Ferrar’s facsimile in his Four MSS.
Collated is even less satisfactory than Scrivener’s. But these
judgments the reader is now able to revise for himself.
The most noticeable peculiarities in the script are the ε as
pointed out by Scrivener, the breathings and the accents, The
grave accent is often written vertically or even acute. The breath-
ings are easily confused, as pointed out by Scrivener, especially
when written in combination with an accent. Not infrequently
the accent is placed over a consonant ahead of its vowel. But
of all these peculiarities the’ most striking is the recumbent ε,
which has given sometimes the seid th that the whole of the
writing was back-handed.
The only MS. which I have seen (apart from one by the
very same hand, to which I shall allude presently) which shews
the recumbent ε in a striking manner is a copy of Homer with
Paralipomena of Quintus Calaber in the library of Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge. The MS. is a paper one, of the end of
the fifteenth century, though Matthew Parker who presented it
to. the College has with his normal incapacity in such matters
assigned it to the seventh century. The hand is similar to the
Leicester scribe's, not only in the recumbent ε but in the style
of accents and breathings, The outside leaves are water-marked
with a pair of crossed arrows, from the junction of which a
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 9
six-pointed star is pendent. Now the crossed arrows with or
without additions, such as an enclosing circle or the like, are not
difficult to identify. I find them in the editio princeps of Rabbi
Nachman on the Pentateuch; they are also given by Sotheby
(Principia Typographica) as found in the following printed books:
Tortellius (Ioannes) Archipresbyter Aretinus; Commentarii Grammatici de Ortho-
graphia. Romae, per Ulricum Gallum, 1471.
Strabo: Geographiae libri xvi Jatine, Guarino Veronensi et Gtegoris Typhernate
interpretibus. Venetiis, per Vindelinum de Spira, 1472.
Valerius Maximus. Venetiis, apud Vindelinum de Spira, 1471.
Cicero (M. Tullius). Zistolae ad Familiares. (Venetiis) per Nicolaum Jenson, ἢ
1475.
Dante Alighieri di Firenze: Za Divina Commedia. Venetiis, apud Vindelinum
de Spira, 1477.
And a similar Watermark is given by Bodemann (Xplographische und Typo-
graphische Incunabeln) as found in Augustinus: de Civitate Dei. Venetiis
John et Vindelin de Spira, 1470.

From the above it is not difficult to conclude that the Corpus

Homer is an Italian production, probably Venetian and capable
of being very closely dated. It is true that these outside leaves
which Matthew Parker and his secretary have utilised may con-
ceivably be a little later than the main body of the book, which
has a somewhat different water-mark, namely, a circle with one
or two interior curves added and surmounted by a cross: but I
do not think the conclusion can be very different either in time
or place to what is given above, and so far as the, analogy is
worth anything it would lead us to say that the scribe of the
Leicester Codex wrote an Italian hand, probably a fifteenth century
hand. The speculation must not however be taken for more than
it is worth, especially. as the resemblance between the hands in the
two codices does not extend much beyond the peculiarities alluded
to above. It is however interesting to remark that my friend
Mr Lewis, the librarian of Corpus Christi, had already labelled
the Homer, on the faith of a foreign paleographer, as being
written in an Italian hand; and that Dr Scrivener, on the other
hand, had remarked in his description of the Leicester Codex
which will be found attached to his Codex Augienszs, that a similar
suggestion had been made with regard to that manuscript by an
Ὁ. i 2
 10 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

antiquarian of eminence. We pass on to a more important piece

of paleographical evidence with regard to the Leicester Codex’.

Il. On a Greek Psalter preserved in the Library of Caius

College.

Leaving the somewhat uncertain groping after evidence of the

previous chapter we step out into the sunlight of direct knowledge
with the statement that in the Library of Caius College, Cambridge,
there is an important MS. ‘by the very same hand as the Leicester
Codex. It was my good fortune to meet with this book on June
25th, 1886, and at once to realise the importance of its relation to
the Cod. 69, my friend Mr Bensly informing me that the identifi-
cation had already been made by Dr Swete through the similarity
of the handwriting to the Scrivener-facsimile. And I might add.
that a large part of the researches which follow are the result
1 For those who are interested in these qui Theodorus secum tulit Adrianum quen-
matters I subjoin Matthew Parker’s notes in dam monachum libris grecis et latinis ap-
the Corpus Homer, remarking only by way prime instructum quem praefert abbatem in
of explanation that the name monasterio beati Petri appostoli ubi Archiepi
ΘΕΟ Cantua sepeliri solent. Hic Theodorus per-
ΔΩ agrata mox insula tota quaque versum An-
ΡΟΣ glorum gentis morabantur (nam et libentis-
is found on the first leaf in a bay wreath, on sime ab omnibus suscipiebatur atque audi-
a blue ground with gold letters. ebatur) rectum vivendi ordinem ritumque
“Dominus huius codicis Theodorus natus celebrandi paschae canonicum per omnia
tharso cilicie ordinatus a vitaliano pp. archi- comitante et cooperante Adriano dissemina-
presbt dorouernensis ecclie an® dnicae incar- bat. Isque erat primus Archiepus cui omnes
nationis sexcentesimo sexagesimo octavo vii ‘Anglorum ecclie manus dare consentiebant,
kal. April dnica et sedit annos xxi menses qui literis sacris et secularibus abundanter
_ tres dies viginti sex. Egberto rege Cantua- ambo instructi congregata discipulorum ca-
riorum et Oswino Northammiorum regibus terva scientie salutaris quotidie flumina inri-
(sic). annos natus Ixvi. Romae monachus. gandis eorum cordibus emanabant. Inditio
Mattheus Cantuar. est (ut Beda scribit li. 4°) quod usque hodie
Hic Theodorus vir et seculari et divina supersunt de eorum discipulis qui latinam
literatura grece et latine instructus, Romae grecamque aeque ut propriam in qua nati
monachus, probus moribus et aetatis vene- sunt norunt neque unquam prorsus ex quo
randus, id est, annos habens ‘aetatis 66 mis- Britanniam petierunt Angli feliciora fuere
sus per Vitalianum papam in Angliam per- tempora etc.”
venit autem Theddorus ad eccliam suam All this and a great deal more by a
secundo postquam consecratus est anno sub learned Archbishop and his secretary over
die sexto calendarum Iuniarum dominica, a MS. about a hundred years old!
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. II

‘of the sympathetic co-operation and learning of Mr Bensly who

has frequently sacrificed whole days in order to assist me in the
elucidationof some obscure point.
First of all I place the materials for the identification of the
handwriting before the reader in the shape of photographs from
each MS. Of the two, the Caius MS. is better in script, as
it is superior in material, and perhaps slightly earlier in date.
_ The same peculiarities appear however in both codices such as
the recumbent ¢, and in many parts of. the Psalter the reedy
appearance of the handwriting. is just as conspicuous as in the
Leicester MS. However 1 think the comparison of the two
specimen pages selected at random from the Leicester MS., with
a page from the Psalter as regards the writing, will be sufficient
to enable the amateur in such matters equally with the expert
to come to a Satisfactory conclusion as to the identity of the
two penmen. Further evidence will be forthcoming on the point
presently. |
Second, we subjoin the description of the Psalter’ as it is
found in Smith’s Catalogue of the Caius MSS.
“Psalterium Davidis, Graece. Large octavo, clean stout vellum,
in wood covered with leather, ff. 132. Rubrics and initials of verses
in red, fol. numbered below in Greek letters and the number of
sheets in old numerals, On the first fly-leaf in Dr Caius’ hand,
‘Collegio de Goneville et Caius, Gulielmus Mowse LL Doctor
dono dedit 1571. On p. 113 ‘here xeeld (1. xwld) be no qweyr’
off ye nubyr off 8 ffor her ys all q ffr. Ric. Brynkeley.’ At
the end are written Isai. c. xxxviii, ver. 10 and Exod. ch. xv.
Benedicite Magnificat and Benedictus Deus? &c. The rubric
lettering and numbering are not carried through.”
Thus far Smith: who means to say or should have said that
each quire (quaternion) of the MS. is marked at the bottom of
the first page in early Arabic numerals and also in the corner
in Greek numerals, while the successive leaves after the first of
the quire are numbered successively as the 2nd, 3rd &c. of the rst,
1 The text of this book was collated for 2 16. it should be described as Psalter and
the. LXX, of Holmes and Parsons, in whose _Canticles.
critical apparatus it stands No. 206,
12 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

2nd and following quires. Our facsimile gives some idea of this,:
along with the weighty note to which Smith refers, in which a
certain brother Brynkeley explains the accident by which the
notation of the quires jumps from 7 to 9 and asserts that there
is no missing quire. The Greek numeration is correctly given
as our facsimile shews.
On the recto of the 97th leaf we again find the name of
Brynkeley written in a fine gothic minuscule on the outer margin
of the leaf, the spelling being Bryngkelei. These notes of owner-
ship are of the utmost importance in what follows, for if we can
trace back the Caius Psalter to its source, it will land us in the origin
of the Leicester Codex or so near to it in time and place that the
differences are of no moment. Before, however, we complete our
description of the Psalter and give the history so far as it can
be traced of brother Brynkeley, it is best to complete the identifi-
cation of the scribes of the two MSS. in question by adding
some evidence of a paleographical character which will probably
dispel any doubts surviving in the minds of those who realize
how delicate a point the identification of handwritings sometimes
is. And since the whole evidence of a common origin depends
on the demonstration of the common hand we add here. the
considerations derived from the structure of the two books con-
sidered paleographically. And in so doing we shall not only
fortify the previous conclusion, but add to the existing knowledge
with regard to the book-form of the times when our MSS. were
‘produced.

III. Ox the Ouires, Catchwords, Gre. of the Leicester Codex.

We have already alluded to the arrangement of the leaves of

the ‘Caius MS., as testified by the signatures of the first pages in
each quire. The book follows the ordinary quaternion arrange-
ment, and has nothing singular, except that there are catchwords
from quire to quire, and that for the first half of each quire the
leaves are numbered successively-as being the 2nd, 3rd, 4th leaves
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 13

of the numbered quire. So that the fourth leaf of the ‘fifth quire
would be marked in the corner of its first page
~~~ ὃ
gu’ Ste
the flourishes being very. curiously made.
Now let us turn to the Leicester MS.
Recognising that the unit of composition in a Greek MS. is
the quire, we ask ourselves what is the quire-arrangement in the
codex. It will be worth while to examine this matter somewhat
in detail. The MS. is, as.is well known, composed of mixed
vellum and paper, and as far as I know, no one has published
any notes on the relative arrangement of the two materials in the
structure of the quire; vellum-paper MSS. remain to be studied,
as is frequently and unfortunately the case with transitional forms.
Now the first descriptions of the codex attribute the arrangement
of vellum and paper entirely to chance. Wetstein uses the words
“temere permixtis.” So Tregelles in Horne’s Jzxtrod. ‘p. 210
‘Paper and vellum are used indiscriminately in its construction.”
Scrivener has corrected this statement by shewing that the book
is generally composed of two vellum followed by three leaves of
paper, “evidently with a calculation on the part of the writer as to
how long the costlier material would hold out.”” And he expresses
himself in a similar manner on p. 23 of the third edition of his 75-
troduction to the New Testament, remarking that ‘“‘ Lost portions of
parchment or vellum MSS. are often supplied in paper by some later
hand; but the. Codex Leicestrensis is unique in this respect, being
composed of a mixture of inferior vellum and worse paper, regularly
arranged in the proportion of two parchment to three paper leaves,
recurring alternately throughout the volume.” Now in these
statements we have no clue to the structure of the quire: the
Leicester Codex is further of unique either in being composed of
‘mixed vellum and paper or in the manner in which the materials
are arranged, and if it is not unique, the key to the arrangement
is to be found in custom and not in any calculation as to the
amount of vellum possessed by the scribe. That it is not unique
in reference to the use of vellum and paper needs hardly to be
demonstrated, but- it may be noted that Dr Scrivener himself
 14 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

records a similar use of materials in two copies of the Gospels,

viz. Cod. 205, written for Cardinal Bessarion by John Rhosus, and
now in the library of St Mark, and Cod. 233, now in the Escurial,
but formerly the property of Matthew Dandolo, a Venetian noble.
(How useful it might be if some one would determine for us more
exactly the quire-structure and dates of these two Venetian copies!) |
And the proof that the arrangement of the Leicester Codex is not
unique lies in the reference to other codices which have the same
or only a slightly different sequence of paper and vellum leaves.
We will for the present mention only one, viz. Mus. Brit. Harl. 3161,
_ whose sequence is sometimes four and sometimes five leaves of
paper to two of vellum.
This brings us to the actual arrangement of the Leicester Codex,
assumed to be no longer an arbitrary matter.
The complete quire is formed of ten leaves, or more exactly
five leaves doubled (what is sometimes called a quinion). So that
the structure of a quire is as follows, V standing for a vellum leaf
and P for pPePe
ae ἐς
πε
Vv A ν
F et ae Ρ
Ρ —— Ρ

The reason of this arrangement seems to lie partly in the pro-

tection of the less durable material from the friction to which
detached quires are subject. This is the normal quire of the
Leicester MS. According to this new quires begin on foll. 1, 11,
21, 31, 41, 51, 61, 71, 81, 91. The quire however that begins
with 91 is peculiar, it is composed of VPPPPYV, ὦ. δ. one double leaf
of vellum and two of paper (ternion). Nor is the reason far to
seek: for this quire ends the gospels, and there is always a tradition
in favour of beginning a new group of books with a new quire.
The epistles of Paul follow, the quires beginning on foll. 97, 107,
117, 127, 137 (the last quire being VPVVPV), then 143, 153 the
final vellum leaf of which quire is cut away (probably because it
was blank andthe Pauline epistles were ended). The Acts and
Cath. Epp. begin with a new quire on fol. 162, and continue with
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ons

quires at 172, 182 and 192, where the epistle of Jude stops abruptly
with the close of the quire. The Apocalypse begins on a paper leaf,
and up to the point where it is mutilated runs PPPPPVVPPPPP,
but not divided into two quires although there is a catchword at
the end of the second V. Such being the arrangement of the book,
it should be noted that almost all the quires have catchwords, and
that not only on the last leaf of the quire. but frequently in the
early paper leaves (to assist the rapid arrangement of a quire in —
proper order). More than this the leaves in the early part of the
separate quires have generally a leaf-signature assigning their place
in the quire. These are often cut away by the binder, and are
dismissed by Scrivener with a remark that a few words often
illegible are scribbled at the foot of the first page of each leaf.
Now these leaf-signatures are precisely similar to those found
in the Caius Psalter, they are the same in handwriting, abbreviations,
flourishes, &c. and complete the proof that the same hand wrote
the two books. As in the Caius MS. and for obvious reasons they
only occur in the first half of each quire.
When we examine the quire- signatures and leaf-Migdaturés more
closely another fact comes to light, viz. that the MS. has been
re-arranged: e.g. on fol. 14 we find ¢dv™ ὃ τοῦ us’, ze. the 4th
leaf of the 16th quire, and so on throughout the Gospels. Further,
when we come to the Pauline epistles, instead of passing from
quire 24 (the last quire in the Gospels) to quire 25 we begin with
a’ (1) and run up to ζ΄ (7). In the Acts there are no numbers
apparent, and only catchwords from quire to quire, and occasionally
upon the paper leaves. The Apocalypse has, I think, only a single
catchword at the end of the vellum leaf.
Now from this it appears that the Gospels did not originally
stand at the beginning of the codex, but at the end. For when
we allow for the portion of the Gospel of Matthew which is lost
with its prefixed table of chapters, making close on two missing
quires, we find that the Gospels would have begun with quire 13.
Arranging then the book in the order
Paul. (=7)+Act.-Cath. (=4)
we have 11 quires; but then the epistle of Jude has lost a leaf
 16 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

which seems to be the first leaf of the quire in which the Apo-
calypse stood (so that we should have Apoc. bound up with Act.-
Cath., and the vellum leaf of the large quire ΡΝ ΡΝ lost
from the beginning and end). This brings the right number ‘of
quires to the Gospels, which accordingly’ stood last, a point which,
I believe, has been already noticed by Dr Gregory.
The whole construction is interesting, Act.-Cath.-Apoc. forming
a complete section, and the Gospels standing at the end. And
. yet who shall say whether it is unique?
We should not omit to mention in this connexion that the
foregoing enquiry adds something to the case for the antiquity
of the Leicester MS. It has been noted by Dr Dobbin that the
MS. must have been mutilated at the beginning before it came
into the hands of its earliest known possessor William Chark, for
Chark’s name stands (not indeed as Dobbin gives it ody Ἵλερμου
Xapkov, but εἰμι Ἵλερμου Xapxov) at the beginning of the mutilated
book. We may safely infer that the codex was well worn before ~
it came into Chark’s hands, further it had been re-arranged before
it reached him, or otherwise the mutilations would not be found
where they are. Add to this that the whole of the book has
been studiously repaired, both vellum and paper leaves, by the
introduction of strips of a commoner paper, which needs to be
made the subject of further examination. : :
So far as the evidence is worth anything it seems to shew
that the MS. had seen its share of the vicissitudes of book- life
before the end of the sixteenth century.
Observe further that my count of the number of leaves does
not agree with that given by Scrivener and other writers. My
calculation is
nine quinions = 90 leaves
one ternion Sh ae Γι
four quinions =40 τιἢ
one ternion Gy Ate
two quinions minus one leaf = ΣΟ os
four quinions =40 5
-eand twelve concluding leaves m2" 0-55
213 leaves in all,
of which 83 are vellum, and 130 paper.
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 17

According to Scrivener 91 are vellum, and 122 are paper,

so that there are eight leaves of disputed material in the book!

IV. On the former owners of the Caius Psalter.

Having now completed the demonstration of the identity of
origin of the two MSS., we proceed to trace their ownership as
far as possible. And we begin with the Caius Psalter as being
the most promising direction. The MS. was presented to Caius
College in 1571 by Dr William Mowse. Mowse was Master of
Trinity Hall, and apparently a friend of Dr Caius as well as a
-next-door neighbour. A good many particulars with regard to
him may be found in Cooper, Athenae Cantad, τι. 43. His official
connexion with Trinity Hall was abruptly severed twelve years
before he presented the Psalter to Caius College, by his refusal to
_take the oath of supremacy which was then being tendered to the’
whole body of the University and College officers. Mowse’s place
was filled by Dr Henry Harvey, Vice-Chancellor of the University
in the year following his election as Master’.
Richard: Brynkley is the earliest known possessor of the Caius
Psalter. The only evidence that we have yet produced with regard
to him consists in the fact that he signs himself /ra¢er : he was ac-
cordingly a member of a monastic community, and it is not, there-
fore, a difficult step of the imagination to infer that the Psalter
passed into Mowse’s hands either directly or with very slight
interposition of ownership at the time of the dissolution of the
monasteries*, And we shall shew that Richard Brynkley was a
student in Cambridge University and a member of the Franciscan
order in that place (Grey-friars) ; that he became provincial minister
of the order in England; that he continued in this office until the
dissolution of the monasteries, and was buried in Cambridge.
When these and other interesting points are established we shall
have advanced the matter in hand a good bit. We shall arrange
our history of Brinkley in the following order. First, we draw atten-
! Mullinger, Hist. Univ. Camb. 1.177.’ ° sessor, in quest of whom we must now go.
We have not much need to enquire further 2 Scrivener has ventured this suggestion
into Mowse’s history, for the simple reason as to the monastic origin of the Codex in
that we have the name of an earlier pos- his Cod. Augiensts.
LG 3
18 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

tion to existing MSS. which were at one time or other in his pos-
session and contain notes of his own on their fly-leaves or margins.
There is in the British Museum a MS. (C7eop. C. 9) which con-
tains the following treatises: De gestis Ricardi primi regis (extracted
from. Roger de Hoveden), followed by Lamentationes Matheoluli
and versus Stapulensis ad Engelbranum praesulem. On f. 63, where
the Lamentationes begin, we find the following note: “ Liber ffris
Thomae Trupyton sacrae theologiae doctor, ordinis minorum quem
dedit ffri Ricardo Brynkele tunc temporis studenti Cantabrigie.”
The above inscription (with one or two abbreviations reduced)
is in two hands, of which the second is I think Brinkley’s own,
beginning “quem dedit;” and in that case the first line is Dr
Thomas Trumpynton’s writing. The latter was by his own admis-
sion a Franciscan friar; and it is clear enough, if there were no
other evidence, that Brinkley studied under him or near him.
Observe in passing that both-names are of families in the Eastern’
counties: “Trompyngtoun nat fer fro Cantebrigge’’ we need not
dwell on; Brinkley is a village not far from Newmarket, and within
a walk of Cambridge. The Brinkley family had monastic tradi-
tions: John de Brinkeley, LL.B., was made Abbot of Bury in 1 361
and died 1369. Another John Brinkley was ordained deacon
1 June, 1409, and priest of the order of friars preachers at Cambridge
March 28, 1411. Another Richard Brinkley is given as Dean of
the Arches in 1407 in Newcourt’s Repertortum 1, 443.
The next book that we know to have been at one time in his pos-
session is a far more famous one, the celebrated Caius gospels. The
following notes from Smith’s Catalogue may be given with some
corrections necessary at certain points, in addition to those accounts of
the book which are found in the pages of Scrivener or Tischendorf.
“The ink is fine, like paint. On p. 1 is 806, after it 1806 and
this inscription, Iste liber est de con- fratrum minorum Oxonie omis-
sus et accommodatus fri. Ric. Brynkeley Magistro. Above in the
same hand q™* Evang. 1. 806. Then follows the title novu™ Tes-
1 Hailstone, History of Bottisham Abbey,p. Monachorum S. Edmundi emptus per domi-
177. This Johnede Brinkeley was the owner num Ioh. de Brinkeley abbatem in quaternis
of the MS. 8E x. inthe British Museum. A et per fratrem Robertum de Beccles col-
note in the book states that it is “Liber ligatus.”
 τ OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ‘19

tamentum Graecum, quod Collegio de Gonville et Caius dono dedit

Thomas Hatcher Artium Magister 1567.” Observe that the unin-
telligible 806 and 1806 are only a misunderstanding—of the closing
letters in guatuor evan 7 stas, also for con- read conite (? communi-
tate, conventu), for omzssus read concessus. The last words from
‘concessus’ to ‘magistro’ are in a-different hand, viz. Brinkley’s
own, as appears when Smith’s spelling is corrected to Bryngkeley
and the writing compared with the marginal note in the Psalter.
Observe further that on the margin of the book in the eleventh
chapter of Luke, and in the same hand as before, we find m* oryng-
keley ;and again at the end of the Gospels, by a rude hand,
p βρηνκελει διδασκολως
where the διδασκαλος is evidently meant for Magister, the title of
the provincial minister of the order. It appears, therefore, that
Brinkley borrowed the book from the Grey Friars at Oxford,
which his authority and his fraternity entitled him to do, that he
took it to Cambridge from whence it did not return, but passed suc-
cessively to Hatcher and the library of Caius College. We have thus
not only collected valuable information as to Brinkley himself, but
we have restored a part of his library, as follows :
Lament. Matheoluli Caius Psalter Caius Gospels
Thomas Trumpington Grossteste?
: |
Richard Brynkeley Richard Brynkeley Friars Minors of Oxford
|
| | Richard Brynkeley
British Museum ~ William Mowse Thomas Hatcher
| |
Caius College Caius College

And it is now within the bounds of speculates that if we

were to add to the above
Leicester Codex
Richard Brynkeley

William Chark
|
Thomas Hayne
|
Leicester Borough ἡ
20 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

we should not be very wide of the mark, but we will not draw
conclusions too soon’.
One other MS. may be added to the foregoing: it does not
indeed contain any mark of Brinkley’s ownership, but it is a
Franciscan MS. which has reached Caius College Library through
the same source as the Gospels, viz. Thomas Hatcher; and when we
remark that it has within it the name of a predecessor of Brinkley
in'the provincial Wardenship of the order, it is almost certain that
it passed through his hands to Hatcher, and so to the College. The
description which I append would then shew an additional member
of the Franciscan-Brinkley Library, whose owners were
John Milham

John ta Zoweh

[Richard Brinkeley]
John Aynsworth of Christ’s College

Thomas Hatcher of King’s College

|
Caius College (Cod. 372).
The history of this MS. is arrived at as follows:
1 Not to disturb our study of the Brinkley and after studyed Physicke.. He tooke great
History, which is the main point, I relegate - paines in collecting this Catalogue in token
the following not wholly uninteresting matter of his loue .to this royall foundation. He
to a note. wrote 2 bookes according to the Centurie of
The Caius Gospels are so important both Baleus of excellent men that had been of this
textually and paleographically that I subjoin Universitie since the time of the foundation
a few remarks with reference to them. of this Colledge, and a chronologie of Cam-
a. The Thomas Hatcher who presented bridge antiquities, being himself a great An-
the book to the College was the son of Dr tiquarie, a religious honest and learned man:
Hatcher, who appears in the Cambridge he dyed in Lincolnshire.”
Calendar as Regius Professor of Physic B. It will be observed that I have con-
between 1554—1564. (See also Baker MSS. jectured above that the Caius Gospels came
29.) He collected a catalogue of all the into the possession of the Friars Minors
Provosts, Fellows and Scholars of the “King’s at Oxford along with other books left them
Colledge of the blessed Virgin Mary and St by Grossteste. The supposition is not in
Nicholas in the Universitie of Cambridge.” itself at all an improbable one. My prin-
This Catalogue is preserved in Caius Library cipal reason for the ‘suggestion lies in the
(No. 173) apparently with some additions. fact that the Caius Gospels contain an inter-
Hatcher himself is described in it, in an linear Latin gloss to the difficult words which
entry under date 1555, as follows: is in the same hand as will be found to have
“Thomas Hatcher, sonne of D* Hatcher, been at work upon a beautiful Greek Psalter
the Queenes Ma“ Physicke Professour in with Canticles in the Library of Corpus
this Universitie, went first to Graves Inne Christi (No. 480), which belongs to the col-
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. © 21
The first part of the book is a history of animals and is followed
by Alex. Necham de laude Sapientiae. It contains at the end:
“istum librum contulit ff. Iohs. de Milham Reveredo Sacr. Theol.
doct. Ioh. Zouch.
Marie for thyn holy grace
Help ffrere John Milam in every place.”
The name of John Aynsworth is added amongst the owners
on account of notes made by him ih the book.
John Zowch, the first owner after the original scribe, was
zgth Provincial of the Franciscans in England and bishop of
Llandaff. He died in 1423'.|
We now pass on to add one or two more details with regard
to the academic and monastic positions occupied by Brinkley.
There is some doubt about the time at which he became a doctor
of divinity, as will be seen in the following record of the event
of his incorporation. into the University of ὌΧΘΟΝ in Wood’s
_ Fastt Oxon. p. 670.
“1524. June. Richard Brynckley, a Minorite or Franciscan
Fryer, Dr of Divinity of Cambridge and as our publick register
lection of Matthew Parker. Other marginal I suppose to be again John Zowch.
hands may be identified in the two books. There are five or six other MSS. in the
Now tliere is some reason for referring the British Museum, which should be examined
Corpus Psalter to Grossteste and his com- in connexion with the foregoing. They may
panions, though I cannot exactly recall the help us much in our analysis. I believe these
reasoning by which that result is arrived at. books are all said to have come from the
Those who care to work the matter out will Grey Friars of Canterbury. Now I want to
find a slip of vellum pasted in the beginning know whether this is owing to inscriptions
of the Corpus Psalter intimating (in a hand of the form “fratrum minorum conventus
of Parker’s time ἢ) that “ Hic liber script’ per Cant.” which I know to be in the first of
eu qui sc. ypomnisticon grece.” If any per- those on my list : are they certainly Canter-
plexity should arise in reference to this the bury MSS., or may they be from Cambridge?
Hypomnesticon in question may be found For the Canterbury Franciscans seem to
in the University Library (Ff. 1. 24). This have been a very- insignificant people, as far
beautiful book (cent. xi.) contains also other as I am able to judge from the books on
important matter, such as the two books of monastic literature. The books are
Chronicles (Holmes’ Cod. 60) and Gross- Reg. 3, C, XI.
teste’s copy of the Testaments of the Twelve
Reg. 2, Ὁ. XXIV.
Patriarchs.
Reg. 3, D. 2.
1 There is another Caius MS. which I Reg. 3, Ὁ. IV.
suspect to be Franciscan, but have not been Reg. 3, E. IX.,
able to examine. It is numbered 325, and
contains at the beginning Formz procedendi and query whether Reg. 8, E. 11. described
in visitatione Ioh. episc. Landavensis, whom later on belongs to the same group or not?
 22 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

saith General Minister of the Minorites throughout England.

His supplication which was granted simpliciter and his incor-
poration are set down in the said register under this year (1524),
yet perusing Cambridge tables containing the names of such who
were admitted doctors of that University, he is put down there
under the year 1527 as being then admitted D of D. In the
said Generalship or Provincialship he succeeded Dr Henry
Standish, and was succeeded’ by Steph. Baron, a Cambridge man,
Confessor to K. Henry VIII. and an eminent Aang of his
time.”
The difficulty suggested by Wood I do not see my way
to resolve, nor is it important for the matter in hand. It is
. quite sufficient to know that he was Doctor of Divinity. about
the time mentioned by Wood. His office as provincial minister
would take him frequently from Cambridge to Oxford, London,
Reading or any places where his order had established itself. The
evidence derived from his books shews him both at Cambridge
and Oxford.
There are numerous monastic catalogues of the various
Wardens of the Franciscans in Cambridge, Oxford, ‘&c., and of
the Provincial Ministers in England, which last give Brinkley’s
name. The following is the conclusion of the list of English
Provincials which is given in Supplementum Historiae Provinciae
Angliae, bound up with the Syllabus to Wadding’s Azstory of
the Franciscan Order (Duaci, 1671).
48. Henricus Standish Doct. Cantab. Ep: Asaphensis 1520. Egregie scripsit
contra Erasmi versionem novi Testamenti. ~
49. Richardus Brinkley: jacet Cantabrigiae ubi erat Doctor, in variis variorum
temporum ministrorum catalogis ponitur ultimus, hoc est ante unionem. Hic
videtur catalogis usque ad an. 1517 quando totus ordo inversus est, tunc ex
observantia totius Angliae constitutus est Provincialis in Capitulo generalissimo.
50. Stephanus Baronus.
51. Johannes Forrestus.
When we reflect that Brinkley studied at Cambridge, graduated
there in the highest theological honours, was in authority there and
elsewhere at the time of the monastic break-up, and there was buried,
we cannot be far wrong in referring the Caius Psalter at a very
early period in its history to the Franciscan Convent in Cambridge,
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. . 23
and in fact we have as yet no evidence of any moment that enables
us to place it outside Cambridge at all. And if this should be
demonstrated for the Caius Psalter, and if the Leicester Codex,
written by the same hand, can be traced back as far as we yet know
its history to a remarkable Cambridge man of the sixteenth century,
is it not in the highest degree likely that the Leicester Codex also
has been obtained from the same source?
But in order to make assurance doubly sure, we will set Brinkley
on one side and make a complete demonstration that the Caius
Psalter was actually bound in the Grey Friars Convent in Cam-
bridge, and we will fix a time-limit which must be a good‘many years
anterior to the time when it was thus bound.

V. The binding of the Caius Psalter placed and approximately

dated.
At the end of the Caius Psalter there is pasted over the board
cover a double leaf of vellum which once formed a somewhat rude
account book of a monastic foundation, with the receipts for masses
said and record of gifts brought in by the mendicants. In order to
make this interesting document accessible to the reader in its
original form, I have appended a photograph of it, which happily is
easier to read in some respects than the original. Our business is
to determine from the receipts the monastery to which they refer, for
we may regard it as-certain that in this monastery the bookbinding
and perhaps the writing of the MS. was done. ;
The following is the transcription of the two leaves, to which
I have for convenience added the necessary numbering of the lines
for reference and some notes by way of elucidation.
Leaf A: left-hand leaf.
- Hardessol pro aia dne Amisie de Scalers 1 marc in pitancia.
[fJesto sce Anne fr. Johes......expendidit in pitancia xviid. ob..
Willm Scherwid xvid. id. Radulphu Child xiid. item
fm Thomam Ely ob honorem sce Anna. xvii ἃ.
quinta...per frem Johan Weting pro aia Willi. Flicham ‘ad
DY
ARE[suJam pitancia xii. ἃ. item per frem Johan de Ely xvi 5.
 24 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

7. in dmea post f[estu]m sce Anna pro aia Johis Baldoc in pi

8. ta]ncia xl d et ultra Weting solvit v d.
9. f[eriJa scda post in pitancia per frem Roger Walsham xxv d.
το. ...€ sequenti fer’. tercia per frem Willm de Sco Yvone xxx d.
τα. ...e fr. qui[nt]a pro pitancia per frm Martinium Leuerington xlii d.
12. Primus compotus post finalem compotum sabb[at]o in f[est]o sco Dominici
- confessoris.
13. Dominica post f[estu]m 5. Dmci in pitanciam pro a{nima] Johis Sauston
14. 1 marcha. per Barburwm.
15. in pitancia per Johem Lywins 1 marc per Hardissell.
16. in pitancia per dmn Bawdewyn de sco Jorgio 1 mark.
17. pro statu Agn et pro animabus Willi et Rogeri in pitancia xxxd.
18. pro statu dni Johis Godewyk. viiis. viiid.
19. pro aia Viennae in pitancia xl d.
20. in pitancia per ff. Willm Blibur xl d.
21. ...Nic. Martyn in pitancia pro anima patris sui vs. per Badbur.
22. ...Jus compotus sabbato in octabio sci Ludowyc episcopi et conf[essoris].
23. in pitancia pro aia Galfd de Massingham viis. vid.
24. in pitancia pro aia ff nri Galfd de Massingham iiiis.
25. in pitancia per procuratorem xl d.
26. Marger[ia] Buteler pro anima Will expendit viiis. viiid per Plumstede.
41, Joh. Morle pro statu Rogeri Madekok.........
ἜΣ ΤΑ’ xxis. iii d.

Leaf B: right-hand.

dns Jhs pro aiabus dni de Seschalers et dne... —

et mortuis quibusdam teneris xxiiii sol et iiiid. per Hardesle.
pro aia fris Rogeri de Albi χίϊ sol et id.
dns -Johis Cortyn - vis. et viiid.
Maria de Plumstede xvs. vilid. ob.
dna abbatissa de Deney misit conventui unum porcum.
de dono dne de Audele pro aia viri sui dimidiam marcam per Mazrf{tin].
dna abatissa de Deney. unum porcum.
RNA
SON
Pee
PR
Ns
DS in una pitancia. xis. viiid. per gardianum.
Io. fr Johes Marbilzor promisit conventui ceplas ficinum et
unum cade allecium.
quartus»compotus et finalis vi kL. julii in crastino sci Johannis.
baptistae anno di M°CCCLXvI.
pro statu Margarete Boteler et a Willi viri‘sui x sol.
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 25

t5.. dns Jhs Josphef pro aia dne de Scalers xxs.

16. primus compotus post finalem pridie | kl. augusti.
17. Margerie de Saustone pro aia Jhs viri sui xv sol. vid.
18. burgenses de Lenia. xld.
1g. f. Nicholaus Ramisseya. ii sol. vid.
20. fr Johs Wetinge. ii. sol.
21. f. Robertus Plumstede. xvis.
22. Margareta Boteler pro statu suo et pro aia viri sui
23. et pro quibusdam teneris ix sol. ixd. ob per Plumstede.
24. Tertius compotus factus in vigil Simonis et Jude.
25. prior gardianus expendit in pitancia feriarum v ante festum omnium
sanctorum I marc.
26. Quartus compotus in vigil sce Barbare.
27. per magistrum in pitancia xd.
28. Margareta Bussal. ν s. xd. per Hardesl,
29. Blaunpeyn. xxxd, per Wetinge.

The following explanatory remarks may be made on the text of

this document :
A.1. The letters at the commencement are the remains of the name of
brother Hardessell, who appears again in line A. 15 and again as collecting
money from or for the same family in B. 1, 2, also Β, 28. The name of the
lady whose soul is to be prayed for appears again in Β. 1 and 15; spelling
in either case follows the law of liberty.
A. 2. The name after Johannes is inserted, apparently with an abbreviation
over the line. I have not been able to read it. But I think it is meant for
an abbreviation of the name in A. 14. The terms “in pitancia,” “in pitanciam”
which occur so constantly throughout the document imply the common fund
of the convent. “Od” is, of course, one halfpenny.
A. 3. The word Zer seems to have been cut away.
A. 5. I am unable to read the second word in the line.
A. το. de Sco Yvone=of St Ives.
A. 12. compotus
= computus, and so throughout.
A. 14. Barburwm is apparently the same as Badbur in line 21: I take it to
be the modern Babraham, a village near Cambridge which enjoys exceptional
varieties of spelling in early records.
A. 21. There are two or three other letters to decipher at the beginning
of the line.
A. 26. Margaret Butler appears again in B. 14 and B. 22. She seems to
have been in brother Plumstede’s collecting district.
A. 27. Only parts of this and the next line are legible.
B. 6. The Abbess of Denny, a foundation of Minoresses near Cambridge,
τ : 4
26 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

of which more presently. The reverse of the leaf which is occasionally legible
shews as well as line B. 8 that she continued to send her pigs to the convent
with praiseworthy regularity.
B. το. More provisions promised to the convent; apparently an osier-basket
(fiscina) of sprats (cepuda is a diminutive form of ceféa and implies some sort
of small fish) together with a barrel of herrings (alec=herring: more exactly, I
think, salted herrings). For the term ‘cade’ and the value of this part of the
gift see the following entry in Domestic Papers of Henry VIII. Vol. 11. Part 2,
Pp: 1403,
1 cade of herrings= ros.
B. 18 Lenia=Lynn; the name of the borough of Lynn is spelt variously
Lena (Domesday-book) and, I think, Lema.

A reference to the accounts of the borough of Lynn, which go back to a very

early period and are in fine preservation and nearly perfect, ought to decide at
once the convent to which the sum of forty pence was paid in the year 1366.
Through the courtesy of the town-clerk of the borough, I was enabled to make
some search for the item, but on the first occasion unsuccessfully, and my depar-
ture from England made a second visit impossible.

B. 29. The name Blaunpeyn is, as I shall shew presently, that of a monk
of the Franciscan order.

On the reverse of these two leaves, when detached from the

boards, a good reader could make out much more of a similar kind
to the above. I only note here, two pigs from Denny Abbey ; also
the names of brothers Roger Wallsham, Robert Plumstede, and
Thomas Beri (Bury). There is a further entry of 16 shillings for
the soul of Amisie de Seschalers, whose progress in the other world
seems to have been peculiarly remunerative to the brethren.
I notice also on a slip of the vellum which has been turned in by
the binder the entries,
...per Thomam Clopton 1 mar.
in piltancia per frem Johem Badburw...xxxis. vid.
For the latter see line A. 2.

Now in reviewing this very interesting piece of vellum, the first

thing that strikes one with reference to the monastery in question
is that it must have been located somewhere in the Eastern counties
of England. Almost all the names bear this upon them: we find
Ely, Baldock, Walsham, St Ives, Babraham, Massingham, Plum-
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 27

stead, Denny, Sawston, Lynn, Ramsey and Bury. All of these

names belong to Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge, Hunts and Hertford-
shire. And therefore we may be sure that we are dealing with a
monastery in the Eastern counties.
Several of the other names that occur, which are not properly
geographical, belong to families of whom the Eastern ‘counties
preserve traces. (I do not refer to the Audley family, inasmuch as
they did not settle at Audley End, near Walden, until the time when
Henry VIII. got possession of the great Benedictine Abbey there,
and bestowed it on one of those who did not further his ends for
nought, however necessary in some regards church reforms might be.)
Take for instance the name of Clopton; William de Clopton
was Abbot and one-of the principal benefactors of Thorney Abbey
in Huntingdonshire ; he died in 1322.
The family were also found in the parish of Walden in Essex;
in the 19th year of Edward II., ὦ δ. Α.Ὁ. 1326, Thomas Clopton was
seised of a capital messuage and six score acres of land in Cheping
Walden, and held also eight acres of the Abbot of Walden by the
service of two shillings. Part of these lands in Walden parish
are still called Cloptons. The date is only forty years before that
of our account-book, and nothing is therefore more likely than that
the Thomas Clopton whose name appears on the turned-in slip of
vellum is this very man or an immediate connexion. It will be
observed that he is not a member of the monastery, or we should
most likely have had /ratrem before his name.
The Butler family also exercised manorial rights in the same
parish at an early period, although at the time of our document
they do not seem to have held property in or near Walden, and in
any case the name is too common to base an argument upon. Nor
is it necessary to attempt to do so, since we are able to point out
the very William Butler to whom reference is made. The following
note in Dugdale’s Baronage, 1. 595, relates to a William Butler who
died in 1362 (four years before the monastic entry of payments for
his soul) : ‘This William took to wife Margaret the wife of Richard
Fitz-alan earl of Arundell and died on Saturday next preceding
Christmas Day in 35" Edward iii... leaving William his son and
heir xxx years of age.”
4—2
28 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

But there is not much need for an elaborate scrutiny of county

histories when we turn to the simple solution of our problem afforded
by the Abbess of Denny and her recurring pig. In the nature
of things at that time a periodic pig could not have been sent a long
distance. And we may therefore enquire whither the Abbess of
Denny was most likely to send this token of monastic attachment.
Would it be Ramsey, Thorney, Bury St Edmunds, Walden, or one
of the numerous religious foundations in Cambridge? The nearest
of the places mentioned is Cambridge. Denny Abbey, the remains
of which are still to be seen, built into more modern and secular
architecture, is situated close to the village of Waterbeach, on the
Great Eastern Railway, and about seven miles from Cambridge to-
wards Ely. We may take 1342 as the date of its foundation, ze.
of Denny Abbey as distinct’ from the still earlier foundation of
Waterbeach Abbey, which it absorbed. Its first abbess is Katherine
de Bolwyk, and it must have been either this lady or one of her im-
mediate successors that was engaged in the hog-industry.
The probability that the pigs went to Cambridge is increased
when we note that Denny Abbey, representing the poor Clares or
Minoresses in this district, is necessarily in close connexion with the
Franciscan convent at Cambridge, in a certain sense subordinate
to them, and certainly in frequent communication. Probably from
thence they obtained a soul-priest when they established a little
chantry in connexion with their abbey. But perhaps nothing
illustrates so well the relations between the two convents as the fact
that we find them getting possession of the patronage of the rectory
of Eltisley (15th June, 1512) and using as their agent in the matter
our friend Richard Brinkley himself’.
Our suspicion that we are to trace the Caius Psalter back to
the Franciscan convent in Cambridge is confirmed by the entry
in line A. 25, “in pitancia per procuratorem.” Now a proctor is
not a recognised part of a monastery, but he is and has been a
leading feature in Cambridge University from the beginning until
now; and more than this there were especial reasons why the
proctor of the University should make a payment to the Fran-
ciscans. Forat the time in question, or certainly not much later,
1 Clay’s History of Waterbeach, p. 108.
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 29

there was no room available for University Commencements like

the Church of the Grey Friars: and the University accounts still
shew traces of the payments made to carpenters for erecting in
the church the stages necessary for public exercises. Further than
this, when in the reign of Richard II., z.e. a.p. 1388, the parliament
was held in Cambridge, it was in the church of the Grey Friars
that the assembly met; which shews that upon public occasions
their buildings (which at first were only a few sheds knocked
together by the day’s labour of a single carpenter, but soon changed
to a greater dignity of architecture) were in demand to meet needs
that no other of the Abbeys or Colleges could supply’.
Another trace of the Grey Friars will be found in the reference
to the festival of St Ludovicus, bishop and confessor. It may be
asked why this should be drawn attention to rather than the name
of St Dominic, which occurs in the same document? St Louis
was a Franciscan of comparatively recent canonization at the time
of our document. The day of his commemoration is Aug. 19, the
year of his canonization 1317. It may well be doubted whether
within this period his name would become a leading one in the
calendar. But if anywhere, certainly among the Friars-minors, who
looked upon him with reverence on account of the royal blood
that flowed under his grey coat. The following extract from a
Franciscan MS. (Mus. Britt. Cotton, Vztellius, F. xii., printed in
Monumenta Franciscana, p. 540) will shew this more. clearly:
Procedente tempore diversorum regum filii ordinem minorum intraverunt, inter
quos est unus frater Ludovicus, nunc sanctus et canonizatus, filius are regis
Siciliae et haeres regni illius; postmodum episcopus Tolosanus.

It will be noticed that an octave of days in our account book

is given to St Louis.
Nor are there wanting illustrations from the Minorite Order
which bear upon some of the families that are here mentioned. The
following instance may be given: In line B. 29 we find a sum of
money collected by brother Weting from Blaunpeyn. This last
name is so peculiar that I could hardly believe I had read it cor-
rectly. But a reference to Pitseus, De cl/ust. Angliae Script. 322,
1 Baker-Mayor, Hist. St Fohn's Coll. p. 38.
30 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

shews the following entry among the writers of the Franciscan.

order:
Michael Blaunpainus vulgo magister cognominatus, natione Anglus, patria
Cornubiensis, apud suos ab annis pene puerilibus ob egregiam indolem bonis
praeceptoribus erudiendus tradebatur, et post prima Grammatices imbibita rudi-
menta, missus Oxonium deinde Parisios, utrobique multa industria, miraque ingenii
foelicitate variam collegit scientiarum supellectilem. Prae caeteris autem se dedit
elegantiae linguae Latinae, fuitque inter praecipuos sui temporis poetas per
Angliam potissimum et Galliam numeratus. Hunc subinde citat Textor in Cornu-
copia sub nomine Michaelis Anglici. Suppetebat etiam illi non vulgaris histo-
riarum cognitio. Itaque secundum politam qua insigniter instructus erat eruditio-
nem in lucem emisit;
Historiarum Normanniae. Librum unum.
Contra Henricum Abrincensem: versu. Librum unum. (Incipit) ‘ Archi-
poeta vide quod non sit.” (extat) Ms in bibliotheca Lumleiana.
Epistolarum et Carminum. Librum unum.
Claruit anno Messiae 1250 sub Henrici tertii regno.

I have no means of determining whether Pits’ account of this

writer is to be relied upon: it is of course possible that he is dated
a century too early: but in any case the name is a Franciscan
one, and the family to which he belonged may well have been
associated with the Grey Friars.
We conclude, then, that the Caius Psalter was put into its
present binding in the Convent of the Grey Friars in Cambridge,
and that in the course of the work the binder employed a leaf of
vellum from an account-book belonging to the monastery, marked
with the date 1366.
From the occurrence of the same names on both sides of the
doubled leaf we infer that the left-hand leaf is not much earlier in
its accounts than the dated half on the right. But what length of
time elapsed until the destruction of the account-book from the
time when it was written, we have no means of determining ;
ἃ priori it does not look as if we could refer the book-binding
to as early a period as the fourteenth century.
It will be noticed that we have only argued as to the
place and date of the éuding of the Psalter, we have drawn
no conclusion of a positive character with regard to the writing
of the MS. If the book were brought to Cambridge from else-
where, it would probably travel unbound; a letter of Adam de
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. — 31

Marisco’ illustrates this point where, in asking for a copy of Aris-

totle to be forwarded, he recommends that the covers be removed
and the book placed in a waxed cloth. And if it was worth while
to do this with a book that was already bound, no one can assume
that it did not occur before a book had reached the stage of unity.
We see this also in the Leicester Codex, which, from its lost quires
and its rearranged matter, must have had vicissitudes of the kind
referred to. But our examination leads us to this, that whether
the two books in question were written in Cambridge or not they
were probably both in the Franciscan convent about the same
time, since we definitely trace one as being bound there, and
apparently in Cambridge hands ever after, and the other, the
companion volume; is found in Cambridge hands as far back as
we have yet succeeded in tracing it.
In concluding this portion of the enquiry we may add a few
points of interest with regard to the Grey Friars convent itself,
which we begin to see to have been a true home of learning down
to the very time of its dissolution. The building occupied the
position which is now held by Sidney Sussex College ; but before
that foundation was established, the buildings had been ‘wrecked
and the stones and timber carried off to form a part of the
king’s academical reconstruction known as’ Trinity College. It
is difficult to see what object was to be gained by pulling a
college down’on one side of the street and rebuilding it on the
other; and one cannot help wishing for Fate to have bestowed
on us a little less of Trinity College and a little more or longer
of the Grey Friars. In that case, too, the foundation of Sidney
Sussex would have been united, as was the intention of the foun-
dress, with Clare Hall; another result that would have been
academically desirable. But we must not attempt to write a history
of Cambridge as it might or should have been; and for Cambridge
as it was, it is sufficient to refer to the work of Mr J. W. Clark |
on the Architectural History of the University.
The good reputation of the Cambridge Friars may perhaps
be inferred from the fact that their surrender was delayed until
the year 1538; the document thereof is not without interest, and
1 See Monumenta Franciscana.
32 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

I print it from the Records of the Augmentation office (Deeds

of Surrender of Monasteries, No. 44).
Cambridge Grey Friars.
Domus fratruam minorum Cantebr. in com. Cantebr. vulgariter dict. the Gray
Frers in Cantebr. in com. Cantebr. (30 Henry VIII.)’.
Willielmus Whyte Gardianus.
Thomas Dysse Doctor.
Robertus Whight Doctor.
Joannes Fakum Vicegardianus,
Joannes Donne. Willielmus Thurbane.
Laurentius Draper. Gulielmus Cateryke.
Gulielmus Cressy. Joannes Arnold.
Joannes Yonge. Richardus Schaffe.
Lucas Taylor. Willielmus Mene.
Thomas Skott. Johannes Brake.
Johannes Vincent. Willielmus Canon.
Damascenus Daly. Johannes Cooke.
Georgius Porrytt. Thomas Gyldartt.
Joannes Stralen. Matheus Lainson.
Without Seal. From the Deputy Keeper’s 8th Report.
We may conjecture that the books belonging to the convent
were disposed of before the day of surrender. When Leland visited
the place, there were not many of any importance remaining. Some
of those which he notes may, I think, yet be found in the libraries
of the Cambridge Colleges. They are as follows:
Collectanea iv. 16.
Cantabrigiae. In Biblioteca Franciscanorum.
Epistolae Roberti Grosstest in numero 127 ex quibus apparet illum fuisse
archidiaconum Leycestrensem. (Incipit) Novit sanctitas.
Epistola fratris Gulielmi Notingham de obedientia.
Epistola Lincolniensis instar libelluli ad Adamum Rufum quod deus prima
forma et forma omnium.
Duo sermones Lincolniensis habiti coram Papa.
Ambrosius Ausbertus.
These five volumes are all that Leland notes as remaining’.
We shall now return to the Leicester Codex and examine
whether any other directions are open to us by which we may
} Day and month left blank. . London House he records some fifty or sixty
2 In the Oxford Franciscan Library he anda few at Reading,
found little besides cobwebs, but in the
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 33
arrive at a closer knowledge of its history and origin. We shall
take up the question of ownership at the point where previous
investigations have left it, 2.6. with William Chark, and as in
Brinkley’s case, we will construct a Chark-Library: in this in-
stance, however, so much more of Chark’s literary and personal
history can be arrived at from’ other sources than from his notes
made in his books, that it is best to give a short sketch of his
academical and subsequent life, and then proceed afterwards to
the attempted reconstruction of his collection of manuscripts.

VI. Of William Chark formerly owner of the Leicester Codex.

It is well known that the Leicester Codex was given to that
‘borough in 1645 along with other legacies (including books, I
suppose) by Thomas Hayne, whose name appears upon the vellim
binding with which the MS. is now adorned’.
Previous to Hayne, it was in the possession of William Chark,
whose name appears in a fine Greek hand on the first page of the
MS., as already stated. Edwards (Z. 2.) gives him as William
Clarke, adds the important information that he was possessed of
other MSS. of the same class (by which he may, however, mean
nothing more than the Montfort Codex) and describes him as
“the ejected fellow of Peterhouse.”
A similar mistake as to the name is noted by Dobbin in the
Emmanuel College Collation of the Montfort Codex which is
supposed to have been made for Walton’s Polyglot, for here a
corrector has changed the name from Charc into Clark; and
is supposed that from thence the Catalogue of MSS. prefixed to
the collation given in the sixth volume of Walton has derived
the name of Clerk. It is needful to repeat this in order that
1 Edwards, Hist. of Libraries, 1.750. Ed- Fell’s edition): it was at one time the
wards also gives us the information regard- property of Caesar de Missy in the sale-
ing the acquisition by the Town Council of catalogue of whose library A.D. 1776 it is
the Collation of the MS. made by Jackson, described as follows : “Collatio codicis Lei-
Tiffin and Gee for Wetstein. According to cestrensis per Rev. J. Jackson adscripta mar-
Edwards this was purchased thirty years gine N. T. Graece impressi Oxonii 1675. Hoc
before his time, and was made in an Oxford est originale e quo variantes lectiones sua
Greek Test. of 1685 (1. 1675, it must be N. T. inseruit Wetstenius,”
L.:C. 5
34 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX .

those who have access to collections of MSS. may be on the

look-out among the Clerk- or Clark-owned. MSS. for additions to
the collection which we shall presently give as that of William Chark.
Now concerning Chark and his expulsion, the details given
in works on the New Testament MSS. in general, or on Codd.
Leicestrensis and Montfortianus in particular, are sufficiently meagre.
Mill describes him rightly, as καλλιγραφώτατος and “in Graecis
insigniter versatus,” to which Dobbin adds, from such a repertory
of knowledge as the New Annual Register for 1792 (!), that he
was mentioned as a distinguished scholar in Queen Elizabeth’s time,
and suspects that he was probably the same William Chark who
was of Peter House and was. expelled the University for heresy (!)
in 1572; a remark which is 1 think carried over by Scrivener
into his description of the Leicester Codex, uncertainty and all!
And yet Chark was, as far as we have any means of judging,
one of the learned men of his time, and measured by the principles
which he enunciated and the firmness with which he adhered to
them, a central figure in the bright and burning time of transi-
tion from the worship of the rude image of authority, which was
supposed to have come down in some unexplained manner from
Jupiter, to that purer ritual which consists in cherishing for the
sake of other men the spark of heavenly flame that. burns within
the hollowed reed of one’s own Individuality, But because it was
easy to suppress this great man provided that no time was unduly.
wasted in justifying the act of condemnation, Chark was deprived
of the honourable position which he held among the rising men
of his time, and sent out academically ‘unhouseled’ as far as regards
the outward bread of life, and ‘unannealed’ except for that holy oil
of joy which flows down constantly upon those who are elected |
to think great thoughts and greatly to express them.
And so it has come about that the name of William Chark is
forgotten in Cambridge even in his own College. What then was
the terrible charge upon which he suffered the double ejectment
from College and University, the heresy which is suggested by
Dr Dobbin? .Nothing more or less than that he was guilty of the
blasphemy against dignities, and did even say that Papacies, Metro-
politanisms, and Arch-Priesthoods were the invention of Satan, and .
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 35
that the ministers of the Church were, or ought to be, a fraternity,
rather than a hierarchy.. This in Great St Mary’s, and before the
Heads, who might, if such principles were carried further, be
(Heaven shield us!) bracketed with the Tails; and in the presence
of the clergy with their keen sense that what is said in the corner
in the Latin tongue has before now been translated (without
authority) upon the house tops and into the vulgar speech that
is own brother to Action.
If he had only said Papacies were of the devil, we might have
forgiven him, perhaps even published his sermon, or rewarded him
with the privilege, in which ecclesiastical lions were indulging
somewhat freely about that time, of roaring again; but to add
the Bishops and Archbishops, we in Cambridge cannot abide that:
Master Chark, in so saying thou reproachest us also, or mayest
‘do so, before Time is much older!
In describing briefly this trumpery charge, which deprived not
Chark so much as Cambridge, I have thought it would. be best
to append the documents which passed between the Chancellor,
the Vice-Chancellor and the criminal; nothing so well brings out
the contrast between the persecutors and the freeman as the
perusal successively of the graceful and forcible Latin periods, with
an occasional Greek jewel, of Chark and the peevish English in
which the Heads of Houses make their senility a memorial to all
generations.
The course of proceeding seems to be as follows:
Chark preached the fatal sermon on December 5th, 1572; on
February 5th following he was expelled both from the University
and from St Peter's College (the Vice-Chancellor’s letter of
December 14th has the good taste to speak of him already as
“late fellow.of Peterhouse”). To this decree Chark replied in
the most dignified manner with the single word “appello,” and the
case accordingly went before Lord Burghley, the Chancellor of the
University.
The first paper that describes the situation is taken from
Matthew Stokys’ book’.
Ὁ All these documents will be found in sions during the Puritan Period, τ. 123ff.
Heywood and Wright, Cambridge Transac-
5—2
36 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

Stokys was one of the inferior University Officials who kept

copies for himself of the historical documents &c. of the time:
he furnishes us with the following:
6° Decembris: an° 1572
Magistro Willelmo Charke, collegii divi Petri in Cantebr. Socio, concionanti ad
clerum in ecclesia beatae Mariae juxta forum, die Venéris, viz. 5° Decembris, et
‘postridie ejus diei vocato coram magistro Thoma Bynge, legum doctore, vice-
cancellario, assidentibus praepositis collegiorum, scilicet doctoribus Pearne, Hawford,
Kelke, Whitgyfte, Chaderton, Harvie, et Hill, magistris Shepherd, Goade et Aldryche,
objectum fuit quod has propositiones in concione sua asseruisset et praedicasset, viz:
1. Isti status, episcopatus, archiepiscopatus, metropolitanatus, denique papatus
a Satana in ecclesiam introducti sunt.
2. Inter ministros ecclesiasticos non debet alius alio esse superior.
Et dictus Willelmus Charke coram praedictis vice-cancellario et assidentibus palam
et publice agnovit et confessus est se protulisse et praedicasse praedictas propositiones
viz, primam directe et alteram implicite, praedictis die, loco, et concione. Et sub-
sequenter facultas et licentia communicandi et conferendi super praemissis cum
doctoribus in theologia facta est dicto Willelmo in diem Martis prox. Quo die causa
dilata est in diem primum Quadragesimae prox. Et dictus Charke solenniter
promisit judicio sisti ad audiendum voluntatem domini vice-cancellarii dicto die, aut
duobus diebus antecedentibus aut consequentibus. _ ΄

The Vice-Chancellor reports the proceedings to the Chancellor

in semi-official manner as follows:
(From MS, Lansd. No. 15 Art. 64.)
To the right honorable and my speciall good lord my lord treasorour.
* * * * * * *

To descend to particular doings; on Fryday was sevennight, being the fifth of

this moneth, one Mr Charke, late fellow of Peterhouse, and now chapplaine to my lord
Cheynie, preaching as he was appointed, a sermon ad clerum emong other matters
which he then uttered, maintained in his discourse these two conclusions :
1. Episcopatus, archiepiscopatus, metropolitanatus, patriarchatus et papatus, a
Satana in ecclesiam introducti sunt.
2. Inter ministros ecclesiae non debet alius alio esse superior.
For the whiche his doctrine, as repugnant to the government of the churche of
England established, I caused him, as our statutes require, to be called before me and
the rest of the headdes, where he being charged with the points aforesayd did earnestly
stand to the defence of the same. It was shewid him what daunger would ensue if he
so persisted and ‘therefor he was advised to conferre with better learnid than himself
and to heare their judgments ;the whiche that he might doo to his greater profitte, wee
graunted him a reasonable space, to consider more diligently of his assertions, and
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ὁ ὁ 37
after to yeld up a full resolucion of his mind therein; the time prefixed is Ashe-
wednesday next: in the meane while he hath leave to depart. And thus farre have
wee hetherto dealt with Chark ; meaning (unles your lordships determinacions shalbe
otherwise) to procede with him according to our statutes, which bind him either .to
revoke his opinion or to be expelled thuniversitie. [The rest of the letter contains
an account of search made for vestments and popish trumpery collected by Dr Caius,
the greater part of which were burnt, including books !]
I commend your lordshippe to the Allmightie his tuicion.
From Clare Hall, the 14th of December, 1572. Your lordshippes unworthie
deputie ever at commandement.
Tuo. Bync.

We return now to Stokys’ book under date

5° Febr.
Quibus etc. comparuit Willelmus Charke et iterum interrogatus a domino pro-
cancellario de duabus illis propositionibus prius illi objectis et in concione sua habita
in ecclesia beatae Marie juxta forum Cantebr 5° Decembr prox. elapso publice
declaratis, respondit et fatebatur illas esse ab eo in eadem concione prolatas, priorem
videlicet explicite, posteriorem vero implicite ; ita tamen intellixisse posteriorem, ut
existimet non debere esse aliquam superioritatem in Ministris ecclesiasticis quoad
jurisdictionem. Deinde a domino procancellario saepius requisitus monitus et jussus
fuit ut easdem propositiones revocare vellet in eodem loco ubi eas docuit proximo
videlicet die Dominico, secundo vel tertio ;quod ille penitus recusavit: unde dominus
procancellarius cum assensu praefectorum collegiorum viz. doctorum Pearne, Hawford,
Kelke, May, Chaderton, Harvye et Ithell tunc praesentium, necnon assensu doctoris
Whitegyfte, magistrorum. Shepherd, Goade, et Aldrich tunc absentium, sed alias, viz.
29 Janu. proxime praeterito committentium voces, suffragia et assensum sua domino
vice-cancellario ad finiendum juxta discretionem suam et statuta academiae causam
motam contra dominum Willelmum Charke, pronuntiavit dictum Willelmum Charke
incidisse in poenam statuti Universitatis praedictae in ea parte facti et ideo exclu-
dendus a collegio suo et Universitate exulandum: et sic sententia sua illum .a
collegio suo exclusum et Universitate expulsum declaravit. A qua sententia dictus
Charke appellavit per verbum appello tantum. Cui appellationi non deferendum
dominus judicavit, tum quia in confessum lata est sententia, nec ulla causa appellandi
fuit pro Charke allegata aut appellationi conjuncta sive apposita, tum quia alias in
consimili causa judicatum est appellationi non esse deferendum, quoties sententia
feratur per dominum procancellarium cum assensu conjudicum suorum, viz. majoris
partis praefectorum collegiorum.
Concordat cum originali. Ita testor,
MATTHEUS STOKYs.
Notarius publicus.

The University having thus summarily refused the right of

appeal to Chark, the latter wrote to Lord Burghley as follows:
38 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

(From MS. Lansd. No. 16, Art. 33.)

To the right honorable the Lord Burleigh, lord highe treasorer and one of her
majesties honorable privie councell.
Academia tua (Cecilie, vir honoratissime) me totidem jam annos aluit, alumnum
non ingratum, quot te habuit Anglia primarium reipublicae virum. Nuper vero
eadem me, quam ego tum calamitatem primam accepi, publice in exilium ejecit,
luctuosum mihi et criminosum nonnihil ecclesiae Dei. Ejus vero causam exilii
procancellarius tuus ad te et quidam collegiorum praefecti detulerunt, ut aditus esset
ad id, quod, ut illi juste fecerint, ego tamen non dicam injuste sed haud scio an
indigne patiar. Nam ut vere tibi et breviter exponam facti conditionisque meae
rationem, cum me esse non dissimulo qui, argumentis e Scriptura et externarum
ecclesiarum exemplo adductus, aliquid abesse putem, quo ecclesia nostra, nuper e
tenebris vindicata, propius ad splendorem πρωτοτύπου χαρακτῆρος possit accedere ; quod
si quando concedet Deus, (concedet autem, ut spero, suo tempore’) facilius erit postea
eandem sartam tectam (ut dicitur) conservare. Sed hanc opinionem meam et aliorum,
cum non ignorem periculose in concionibus coram imperita multitudine promulgari,
quia aliquid habet et plebi novum et ab institutis reipublicae alienum, scientiam
veritatis mihi reservavi, et ab ejus in concionibus meis promulgatione studiosissime
semper abstinui. Caeterum in senatu privato et sermone Latino, majorem me
putabam posse libertatem usurpare ; ideoque in academia (id est) in doctissimorum
et sapientissimorum virorum corona, sententiam meam in ejusmodi rebus liberius
explicabam. Quo facto nescius tenebar crimine violatae legis, in judicium vocatus,
qui in causa mea judices erant ex sanctione legis non solum aquae et ignis mihi
usuram interdicebant, quibus vivimus, sed et literarum, quibus bene vivimus. Ego
appellabam, et his literis meis supplex appello aequitatem et bonitatem tuam, in quo
uno spes mihi relinquatur illius loci rectiperandi in quo mihi conceditur tanquam in
rerum praestantissimarum mercatura vitam propagare. Cum igitur ad tranquillitatem
ecclesiae, in maxima opinionis meae πληροφορίᾳ semper tacuerim, si illud unum factum
excipias ;cum statuam deinceps tacere; cum denique levius deliquerim quod Latine
sententiam meain dixerim: peto a te ut quem illi ἀκριβοδικαίως ejecerint, tu velis
ἐπιεικῶς quasi jure postliminii restituere ; neque cum haec peto, eo pertinet petitio mea,
ut auctoritas tua intercedendo illorum factum rescindat, quod tamen potes concedere ;
sed hoc a te pro incredibili tua erga academiae tuae clientes bonitate peto, ut literis
tuis ab academiae praefecti$ petere velis, ut me restituant, protinus ejiciendum, si vel
pacem ecclesiae vel reipublicae vel academiae violavero. Hoc si concedas, qui jam
ignominioso Homeri versu dici possim ἀφρήτωρ, ἀθέμιστος, ἀνέστιος, recuperata
civitate felix me abdam in bibliothecam meam, Deo καδδύναμιν et reipublicae dabo
operam: te vero, (lectissime cancellarie) quem semper multis nominibus colui,
colam deinceps pluribus, et assidue: maxime hac precationis formula ut te Deus
patrocinio tueri velit sempiterno. Amen.
Tuus σὺν τῷ θεῷ ad omnia paratissimus.
: ‘ GuL. CHARCUS.

1 Concessit et concedet, frater Charce.

 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 39

The following is the reply of the Heads to a letter of enquiry

addressed to them concerning Chark.

(MS. aoe No. 16, Art. 34.)

To the right honorable and our - singuler good lord the lorde Burghlie, lorde
threzurar of England, and Chauncellor of thuniversitie of Cambridge. —
Our duties in most humble maner to your honour remembryd; your: lordship’s
lettres wrytten in the behalf of Mr Charke have made us all not a litle perplexed ;
partlye, for the boldnes of hym, who in so notorious a faulte, and manifest breach
of statute, woulde attempte to procure your lordship’s favor; but most of all for
that we are herebye brought in some dowbte of your lordships good lykynge of our
proceedings in that cause; whereof to rendre a just accompt and that your lord-
ship maye therbie the easelier judge what lenitie hathe been used on our partes
towards the said Charke, contrarie to his reporte, as it semyth, may it please your
lordship to be advertised of the whole matter from the begynyng.
First, omitting the great expectacion of many longe before hys sermon, raysed
as maye probabley be thought by some speach given out by hym concernyng
thoes thynges whereby he would intreate; having also his singuler confidence used
in the whole action and utterance of his sermon: even at that tyme when he was
called before us, besides the obstinate defending of his errors, he spared not in
presence to overthwart divers of the heades in very unseemlie maner, and with
taunting wordes. Nevertheless bearyng with his want of discrecion beyonde his
desert, and seeking to allure hym by gentle perswasions we thought good he should
severallie θέ communyd with by three or fower of our companye. After which
conference, though they had litle prevailed with hym, yet that he shoulde not thynke
hymselfe to streightlie dealt with, we graunted hym more than seven weekes space
to consyder throughlie of his groundes, and after good advisement to yeld his aunsyr
upon the same; giving hym further to understande howe we could doo none other-
wise than the statute required yf he should persiste in his conceyved opinions. At
the tyme apointed wee founde hym nothinge altered. Howbeit styll wishing his
good conformitie and meaning raither to reduce him charitablye, then sodainlye to
cut hym of, wee offered that yf he would but onlie promisse, upon better delibera-.
cioun, to revoke his assertions, he should be respeited for the performance thereof
till after Easter; which for that before us all he utterlie refused to do, it was con-
cluded with one consente, that he should incurre the payne of the statute; that ys
to lose both his college and also thuniversitie; now yf this punishment’ had been
enjoyned hym onlie by our arbitrements and not by statute, yet his demerites being
such, as we have declared and he cannot denie, he could not justlie have com-
plained of over much severitie. But seeing we have doon nothynge of any private
consyderacion in this cause, but our sentence hath been wholie directed by her
majesties Statutes, delivered unto us, as a rule to guyde us, and wherewith to dis-
pense is utterlie forbidden us, we muche muse what coloyr of defence he can seeme
to pretende. And suerlye how necessarie it ys that we have suche statutes and namelie
40 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

that one concerning preachers’, the malice of theas times dothe easelie shewe. For
since Charke hath broched theis untimelie contentions, others have ventured to
contynewe the same, wherby the myndes of somé are so incensed, that in manye
colledges they studie and devise onlie how to moleste and disquiet their governours;
their drifte as it ys well knowen, being nothynge els but to procure to themselves
a licentious libertie; wherein yf they may fynde favour through their importune
sutes, our state is most miserable of all other*. What poyson lyeth hyd in popu- ᾿
laritie can not be unknowen to your singular wisdome. Owr labors and travayles in
suppressing the same must nedes be joyned with occasions of great envy, which we
shall never be able to resiste, unless we be supported by your lordships auctoritie,
and others that are placed in the chiefest roumes*, speciallie when the difference
consisteth in this, whether we shall be borne with for executynge our lawes, or
other by indulgence incoraged which breake the same. And yet for Charke, we
have further to report that after the delyvery of your lordships lettres, being agayne
demanded whether he would yet promisse to retract his former doctrine, he would
in no wise yeld thereunto, but made the like refusal as before, adding that he thought
_your lordships meanyng was not to have hym recante. Wherein as your lordship
may well perceave -his great presumption, so did he nothyng deceyve the expectacion
of some of us who have noted in hym the like hawtee stomake ever sythens we first
knewe hym. Thus having dissembled nothyng, but playnlie laid furth the case as it
ys, wee are most humblie to crave your lordshipps favorable assistaunce for the
repressinge of this and the like enormities wherewith we are so ‘greatly encom-
bered at this present that of force we should faynt, weare we not sustayned with
the onlie hope* of your lordshipp his good acceptacion and countenancing of
our dutifull travailles in that behalfe.. Even so praying thalmightie long to preserve
your honour to our great comfort and the wealth of this state, we humblie take our
leave.
From Cambridge the seconde daye of Marche 1572 your lordshipps ever most
humble at commaundement
Tho. Byng Vice-Chancellor William Chaderton
Andreas Perne Henr. Harvy
Edward Hawford Thomas Ithell
Roger Kelk John Caius
John May Nicholas Shepperd
John Whytgyfte

The Heads having thus set aside with wounded dignity the
suggestions of the Chancellor, Chark wrote him the following|
charming farewell epistle;
1 For how shall they preach, except there just the question at issue.
be statutes? 4 Apparently a somewhat free ΒΕ ΣΑΣ
3 Apparently a reference to 1 Cor. c. xv. from one of the Psalms.
3. The ‘chiefest roumes’ happens to be “ i
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 41

Mr Charke to Lord Burghley.

(From MS. Lansd. No. 16, Art. 35.)
To the right honorable the Lord Burley, highe treasorour of England, and of hir
majesties most honorable privie councell.
Quid auctoritate literarum tuarum apud academiae tuae praesides profecerim,
(honoratissime vir) hi opinor literis suis significarunt: ego autem plane: non sine
maxima studiorum meorum jactura persentisco. Nam, ne quid gravius dicam, qui in
accusationibus levissimus debeam dicere, illi nova et inaudita auctoritatis suae inter-
pretatione indictam et sex ad minimum dies admissam appellationem meam, postea
affirmabant omnino esse ἀπροσδιόνυσον᾽ quia etsi a sententia procancellarii liceat, non
liceat tamen a decreto praefectorum appellare. Hac sententia auctoritate sua appel-
lationis et jure et beneficio me privari putabant ; idque non in mea tantum, sed et
in aliorum deinceps causa quasi legitimum sit, solenni suo ψηφίσματι decreverunt.
Ego certe quid in hac recutiendum sit, homo in causis forensibus plane hospes, non
intelligo; injuriam et praerogativae tuae minutionem nonnihil suspicor. Sed in
petitione mea et literarum tuarum quod repulsam tulerim, eorum factum est perti-
nacia, tibi nihilominus (clarissime et lectissime domine) quod causam meam susceperis,
gratias ago semperque. quoad vixero agam maximas, idque non meo solum, sed et
multorum praeterea optimorum virorum nomine, qui te habent in causa sua, quae
temporum injuria vim patitur, faciliorem. Quod reliquum est me tibi causamque meam
trado; qua si amissam civitatem et intermissa studia recuperavero, me novo bene-
ficio adjicies ad eorum numerum qui amplissimis tuis beneficiis viventes ac vigentes,
praeter laudum tuarum praedicationem, a deo praeterea petunt quotidie, ut pro
immensa misericordia sua te conservare velit, quo uno respublica’ nititur maxime,
atque ut nitatur diutissime bonorum firmamentum concedat Deus. Amen.
Honoris tui studiosissimus alumnus

GuL. CuHarcus.

And so ended this petty academical persecution. Of Chark’s

after life we know comparatively little. .He obtained, I believe,
besides or instead of the Chaplaincy referred to by the heads,
some positions of religious trust such as the office of preacher at
Lincoln’s Inn. Not long after his expulsion, his ardent defence
of what he held to be the true Christian doctrine entangled him
in a curious controversy, from the account of which we gather a
little more information as to the manner of life which then
characterized a preacher of somewhat Puritan views.
Edmund Campian the Jesuit had circulated a polemical tract
in defence of his Church and its polity, accompanied by an offer
of disputation of some kind or other, which was taken hold of by
L. Ὁ, 6
42. ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

two ministers, one of them being Meredith Hanmer and the other
our friend William Charke.
Charke’s book is entitled as follows: “An answer to a seditious
pamphlet lately cast abroade by a Jesuite (E.C.) etc.” Lond. 1580.
Apparently this produceda reply from Campian -entitled. “A
Brief Censure upon two bookes in answer to an offer of disputation.”:
Hereupon Charke wrote “A Replie to a censure against the two
answers toa Jesuites seditious pamphlet,” Lond. Barker, 1581
(some copies 1582): while Meredith Hanmer followed suit with
“The Jesuites Banner...with .a confutation of a late pamphlet
secretly imprinted and entitled: A Brief Censure upon two bookes
written in answeare to Mr Campian’s offer of Disputation. Com-
piled by Meredith Hanmer M. of Arts and Student in Divinity;
London, Thomas Dawson and William Vernon and to be solde in
Paule’s Churchyard at the brazen serpent, 1581.” Campian mean-
while was thrown into the Tower on a charge of high-treason and
Charke with six other divines were sent to hold with him the
disputation he had desired.
These books produced a rejoinder from another Jesuit, Robert
Parsons’, who took up the defence of his friend, who had in the
meantime gone from this world by the exit-door of the rack and of
martyrdom. It is entitled, “A defence to the censure given upon
two books of Will. Charke and Meredith Hanmer ministers which
they wrote against Mr Edmund Campian, Priest of the Society of
Jesus, and against his offer of disputation. Printed 1582°*, taken in
‘hand since the death of Campian.” In this book the writer. handles
Chark very roughly: on the title-page he describes how to decline
the noun ‘heretic’ as follows:
Sing. Nom. Superbus.
Gen. Temerarii.
Dat. Mendaci.
Acc. Pertinacem.
Voc. Seditiose.
Ablat. Atheo vel Libertino.
Plur. Hi et hae impudentes per omnes casus.
From which it will be seen that Master Parsons was in “ex-
cellent fooling” at the time. Further in a letter to Charke printed
1 Wood’s A thenaez, τ. 306. 2 At Douay?
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 43

at the beginning,.he charges him with indecent behaviour at

Campian’s funeral, which I sincerely hope was not true: “how
finallie you made hym (Campian) away by cruell death without
any shew or shadow of particular crime committed by him, against
prince or countrie; and that your selfe (Mr. Charke) as a conqueror
-of your adversarie, folowed him in person to the place of hys-
Martyrdome with bigge lookes, sterne countenance, prods.wordes
and merciles behayvour.”
This book was followed ‘by “An answeare for the time, unto
that foule and wicked defence of the censure that was given upon
M. Charke’s booke and Meredith Hanmer’s...now published for
the stay of the Christian reader till Maister Charke’s Booke come
foorth. London,“ Thomas Dawson and Tobie Smith, 1 583.” And
then comes “A treatise against the defence of the censure &c....”
which, if I remember rightly, is Chark’s; I cannot be sure of the
date but it is printed at Cambridge. There is also a book
entitled ‘““A remembrance of the. conference had in the tower
of London betwixt D. Walker and W. Charke opponents and
E. Campion respondent 27 Septr. 1581...A true report of the
disputation had with E. Campian &c.” 1583..°.Concerning all
which long entangled reply, censure, defence and disputation, we
can only say “Requiescant in pace’.”

VII. Of William Chark's Library.

It will have been observed that in one of Chark’s letters:to the
Chancellor, he expressed himself as willing to retire somewhat from
the burning air of St Mary’s church into the cool and sylvan soli-
tudes of his own library. He seems to have been at this time
possessed of 8. collection which he prized. And it is interesting
to know that it is possible to reconstruct quite a library of Greek
and Latin MSS. which were formerly in his hands. In addition to
1 The following references should be taken for the Chark persecution :
Strype, Annals of Reformation, 11. 312,
» Life of Parker, wv. c. 18, all quoted in Cooper,
” Life of Whitgift, τ. c. vil. App. No. ΧΙ.» Athenae Cant. WU.
Sequel to Frend’s Trial, τι. 143, 312.
Howell’s, State Trials, ΧΧΙΙ. 701,
6—2
44 . ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

the Leicester Codex and the Montfort Codex, we have the following,
all of which are in the British Museum:
Mus. Britt. Zz¢us, D. 1, containing xxxvii. articles of Wy-
cliffe in English. On the first page, “sum gul. charci” 1575, 2.€.
three years after the expulsion. No note is to be found indi-
cating from whence he obtained the book. But there are signs
that he studied it carefully, in the shape of marginal notes written
in his beautiful Greek hand drawing attention to some important
passage or making a criticism upon it. Indeed some parts of the
book are so much in Chark’s line that, but for the date given above,
I should assume that he had been studying it not long before he
preached the fatal sermon. Thus we find that on fol. 28b, Chark
has set on the margin the word ὅρα against the passage in which
Wycliffe attacks avaricious popes and cardinals, “thanne he is a
symonient and eretyk and a cursed anticrist and a sone of per-
dition, &c.”
On ἢ 33, Chark has written on the margin ἐποχή against the
following passage: “for the hethene men ben manie mo thousandis
than cristene and ben richere and betere men of werre.”
The concluding words of the book are described on the margin
as προσευχή.
The next is Cleop. A. 8, and contains

Epigramma in paparum nomina.

The Rhythm of Bernard of Morlaix ‘etc:

At the beginning the note “Swm Gul. Charci.” Occasionally

passages are underlined, and sometimes a Greek abbreviation is
found on the margin to express the reader’s opinion, €.g. καλῶς.
The third is Claud. 1). vut., and contains the Statutes of the
University of Oxford, bound up with the Postils of John Wiclif.
Only the latter part, I think, beloabee to Chark. On its first leaf
stands “ Sum Gul. Charci 32.” which I take to be the price that
he paid for the book. We may evidently regard Chark as a true
disciple of Wycliffe.
The fourth is Mus. Britt. 1 5, wae A beautiful MS. sf
Valerius Maximus, referred in the catalogue to the fifteenth century.
On the first leaf is “Sum Guil. Charci.” And it is of great interest
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 45

to us from the fact that it has preserved the same mixed paper-
vellum arrangement as in the Leicester Codex, three leaves of
paper between two of vellum forming the quire (of ten leaves when
doubled over). Further there are catch-words from quire to quire.
This arrangement is so unusual that where we find two such MSS.
of special type in a transitional period, in the possession of the same
person, we are entitled to assume that they came from the same
manufactory. For this reason I refer the Valerius Maximus to
a common origin with the Leicester Codex and the Caius Psalter.
And the ground of this is that between one pair there is a common
early structure of book-building and a common late owner, and
between another pair a common hand-writing. Accordingly we
should add the Valerius Maximus to the Franciscan-Brinkley col-
lection, and then the three MSS. will go’ back beyond Brinkley
to a common origin and place. We have now completed our
Chark-collection as follows:
Cod. Leicest. Cod. Montfort. Valerius Max.
[Brinkley] Froy [Brinkley]
Williams terie infra)

Clement

Chark Chark Chark

secon

Hayne Ussher
| Mus. Britt.
Leicester Borough Dublin Univ. (15, C. VIII.)
Wycliffe’s Articles (Bernard ’s Rhythm) Wrycliffe’s Postils

ar Chark Chark
| |
Mus. Britt. Mus. Britt. Mus. Britt.
(Titus, D. 1) (Cleop. A. 8) (Claud. Ὁ. vit.)

Before we go. into further enquiries with regard to the three

MSS. supposed to have had a common origin, we make a few
remarks with regard to the Montfort Codex.
46. ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

VIII. Of the Montfort Codex.

This MS. is not likely to help us a great deal in our enquiry
on account of its being so late in date. But it is interesting to
know that there are reasons for assigning to it also a Franciscan
origin. If we can establish this point, the known connexion of
the codex with the Leicester MS., through the common owner-
ship of Chark and the similarity of text in the Apocalypse be-
tween the two, becomes easily intelligible. And the study of the
origin of the Montfort Codex in other parts of the New Testament
will probably confirm this (z.e. if Dobbin is right in certain specu-
lations as to the copying of Montfort from Oxford codices, I should
expect to find that these codices were also Franciscan). But leaving.
this on one side, as a point which I have not been able to investi-
gate, we have the good fortune to know the names probably of
nearly every person through whose hands the MS. has passed.
It is true that the leaf containing the names of the owners has
disappeared from the MS.: but we have Walton’s note, among
others, that it originally belonged to one Froy, a Franciscan friar,
then to Thomas Clement, afterwards to William Chark, and lastly
to Thomas. Montfort?.

1 With regard to Walton’s note, however, most to a certainty that the other Friar who
we have a question raised by Dr Barrett in owned the book, or, which is much the same
his Collatio Cod. Montfort. p. 2. He says thing, disposed of it, was also a Franciscan.
that the note in the MS. is as follows: So that Dr Barrett’s remarks really supply
“Sum Thomae Clementis, olim fratris the needed demonstration, and at the same
Froyhe.” time add one more to the list of owners.
Therefore if Walton is right that Froyhe Perhaps we ought to use the last word cau-
was a Franciscan, he must have obtained tiously. If we assumed the MS. to have
that information from sources unknown to passed from Williams to Froy, this would
us. If, however, Barrett throws some doubt meet most exactly the spirit of the inscrip-
in this way on the statement that Froyhe tion, by which Froy appears as owner before
was a Franciscan, he establishes the con- Clement: but when we reflect that Williams
clusion in another way, by finding in the MS. was of the same college with Clement and at
the name of one Williams, of Corpus Christi the same time, it seems more reasonable to
College, Oxford, and notes in his handwriting; suppose that he obtained the book for Cle-
and he shews from Wood’s Faséé that this ment from Froy, and this would make Froy
Williams took his degree as doctor of di- the earlier possessor. In any case the Mont-
vinity about the yeaf 1521, that his name at fort Codex now enjoys the repute among
length is David Williams, and that he was a MSS. of having probably every one of its
Franciscan, Now if this be so, it follows al- owners known.
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 47

Now the first thing to notice is that the ownership of the book
by Thomas Clement (which we shall shew reason presently for
correcting to John Clement) takes us back probably nearly to the
year 1520, when he was Greek Professor at Oxford, and we have
not therefore very much time to give the book into earlier hands,
since it is one of the most modern (as well as most famous) of all
MSS. of the New Testament. I conclude therefore that it is very
unlikely to have had many owners before Clement ; and the owners
are accordingly to be found among the Franciscan monks. If
owners, then probably one of them is also writer. ᾿
This being the case we have a Franciscan origin for the Mont-
fort Codex as well as the Leicester MS., which is the point that
we wanted to prove. But the matter does not stop there. For
we can, I think, actually identify the Froy of whom Mill speaks:
and I cannot but think that we have here an accidental repetition
of a letter on the inscription of. ownership according to which
‘fratris Roye’ has become ‘fratris Froye.’ Roy is well known:
in some respects he is one of the most remarkable figures of the
Reformation. His history is as chequered as his genius is versatile.
He was educated in the University of Cambridge, and became
shortly after a friar of the Greenwich Observants ; 2.6. he attached
himself to one of the branches of the Franciscan order in England’.
But he forsook his convent, and in’ 1524 joined himself to Tyndal
at Hamburgh, whose amanuensis he became, and with whom he
continued for’ some time, until. differences arose between them.
Hereupon Roy went to Strasburg, where he wrote the famous
- satire upon Wolsey and the clergy, ‘‘ Rede me and be not wroth,”
as well as a book against the seven sacraments. He suffered mar-
tyrdom in’ 1531 in Portugal, apparently on a charge of heresy.
Some idea of the man’s talents and versatility may be gathered
from Tyndale’s own language concerning him, which does not
disguise the abilities which Roy possessed, however much it sets
his character in.an unfavourable light. “One William Roye, a
_man somewhat craftye when he cometh into new acquayntance and
before he is thorou known, and namely when all is spent, came unto
1 See Cooper’s Athenae, 1. 44,andauthori- same'date there would be in the same reli-
ties quoted. Is it ὁ 2γίογέ likely that at the gious order both a Froy and a Roy?
48 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX —

me and offered his help. As long as he had no money, somewhat

I could rule hym: but as soone as he had gotten hym money, he
became lyke hymselfe againe. He went and got hym new friends,
whiche thinge to do, he passeth all that ever I knewe. His tunge is
able not only to make fooles starke mad, but also to deceyve the
wisest that is, at the firste acquaintance.”
This then (according to the best speculation we can make) was
the man who wrote the Codex Montfortianus, or at all events was
its owner at a time extremely close to that when it must have been
written. For Roy had ceased to be a Franciscan by 1524, and
the Montfort Codex makes its appearance in history between the
second and third editions of Erasmus; z.e. between 1519 and 1522;
nor can the Codex Britannicus, as Erasmus called it, be very many
years earlier, if earlier at all, than this period. I believe, there-
fore, that for the main part of the codex, including the forgery in
1 John v. 7, Roy is responsible.
Let us ask ourselves whether there was anything in the atmo-
sphere of the Franciscan order that favoured or suggested the
production of such a MS. for polemical purposes. In the first
place remember that Ximenes, the father of the Complutensian
Polyglot, was regarded as the leading man in the Franciscan order,
and every attack upon Erasmus is therefore a Franciscan defence.
When the controversy over the Three Heavenly Witnesses be-
gan to wax warm, it was from the Franciscans of Antwerp that
a copy of the New Testament was produced containing on the
margin the disputed verse. This was sent apparently to Erasmus,
who remarks somewhat sarcastically upon the modern hand in
which the passage was written as follows: “In codice qui mihi
suppeditatus est e bibliotheca Minoritarum Antwerpiae in margine
scholium erat ascriptum de testimonio Patris Verbi et Spiritus sed
manu recentiore ut consentaneum sit hoc adjectum αὐ erudito quo-
piam qui noluerit hanc particulam praetermitte.” Remark, in the
next place, that the immediate predecessar of Brinkley, as pro-
vincial, minister of the order in England, was Henry Standish,
of whom the main thing that is remembered in the Franciscan
monuments is his hostility to the version of the New Testament
made by Erasmus, by which I -understand the text and anno-
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 49

tations and Erasmian critical work generally. So strong was

this antagonism that some authorities go so far as to say that
he made it a subject of daily discourse to hurl anathemas at
Erasmus. Now this is precisely the atmosphere to produce
such a forgery as the Montfort Codex contains, Standish was just
the man to inspire it, and Roy the very person to carry it out.
Nor is this argument affected, so far as the Franciscans are con-
cerned, if our conjecture concerning Roy be false.
I subjoin the authorities for the foregoing statements with regard
to Standish:
“ Supplementum Historiae Provinciae Angliae.” Duaci, 1671. ‘
No. 48. Henricus Standish, Doct. Cantab. ep. Asaphensis, 1520. LZgregie
scripsit contra Erasmi versionem Novi Testamentz.
Wadding. Scriptores Ord. Min, Syllabus, 167.
“Henricus Standicius, Anglus, 5. T. D. et tandem episcopus Asaphensis, vir.
pietate et doctrina clarus, Catholicae religionis strenuus propugnator, omniumque
haeresium juratus hostis, in suis concionibus haereticorum argumenta et errores
nervose refutare solebat: et inter alios Erasmum Roterodamum temerariae doctrinae
nominatim aliquando arguebat. Pauca tamen eius scripta reperio, licet eum plura
scripsisse constat. Hos saltem operum titulos Willotus recenset.
Sermones ad populum, librum unum. Contra versionem novi testamenti factam
per Erasmum, lib. unum.
Londini mortuus et sepultus est in bona senectute, circa annum 1520.”

The date of his death is evidently a misunderstanding, as it

is given 1534 in Wadding, Tom. xx. p. 340. The note is as
follows:
Henricus Standicius= Min. conv. sac. Theolog. mag. et oxonien. Universitatis
Doctor de quo plura inter lites quasdam selectiores a Roberto Keibrey an. 1602
Londini publicatas. Anno 1508 erat Angliae provinciae minister...
Scripsit etiam De matrimonio Catharinae Reginae cum Henrico VIII° non
dissolvendo, teste Sanders de schism. Anglic, lib. 1, apud Spondanum in con- -
tinuat. annal. Eccles. ad an. 1529 num. 7.
Factus est autem Epis. Asaphensis in Anglia an. 1518 ex Reg. Pontif. seditque
annos 16 ex catalogo antistitum illius Ecclesiae: obiit igitur an. 1534 quo quidem
teterrima in Anglia haeresis et schisma incoepit. Hic idem cum in Erasmum calamum
strinxisset ab ipso in scoenam inductus legitur, aut Joannes ejus nepos, adag. 96.

Bale, De Script. Britann. p. 76, gives the same account of

his Erasmian antipathies with perhaps a little Protestant exag-
geration :
L. Ὁ. 7
50 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

Henricus Standicius, minorita et asaphensis episcopus in guotidiana concione

plura contra Coletum et Lrasmum blateravit et semel coram rege et regina in
genua procubuit. Et collaudatis primo eorum majoribus quod semper ecclésiam
aduersus haereticos ac schismaticos defendissent, hortatus imo per omnia sacra
obtestatus est eos, ut pergerent suorum progenitorum esse similes, alioque de-
ploratam fore Christi religionem. Jussus ut indicaret quae essent haereses exitiales
unde metueret: rem porrecturus in digitos, Primum inquit Erasmus tollit resurrec-
tionem, deinde nihili facit matrimonium, postremo de Eucharistia male sentit. Et
cum ad probationes ventum esset, pro Corinthios protulit Colossenses: ‘omnes
quidem resurgemus &c.” risumque peperit multis. Edidit inutilis artifex
Sermones ad vulgum lib. 1.
Contra versiones Erasmi lib. 1.
et similes nugas. Claruit delirus senex anno Christo nato 1520. Londini tandem
sepultus.

The foregoing statement of Bale is interesting since it shews

that the attack was made upon Erasmus’ doctrine through his text,
the disputed passage being 1 Cor. xv. 51 in which the Vulgate
and many old Latin copies read πάντες ἀναστησόμεθα (resurgemus)
for the πάντες [οὐ] κοιμηθησόμεθα of the Greek copies. This
presumably novel Greek reading, according to Standish, under-
mined the doctrine of the resurrection. This becomes more clear
when we turn to the Annotations of Erasmus on the passage in
which he refers directly to his critics:
Vides optime lector quam hic nihil sit quod in ‘me debeat reprehendi. Nam
quod sequor eam lectionem quae sola nunc habetur in libris Graecorum, quum
Graeca vertam, non licuit secus facere. Et tamen ex hoc loco duo guidam, tanti
theologi, ut sibi persuaserint semel ruituram universam ecclesiam, nisi eam suis
humeris fulcirent, alter episcopi quoque dignitate praefulgens, uterque professor eius
religionis, quae baptismi professionem pene reddidit irreligiosam, atrocem calumniam
mihi struxerunt’. Alter iz corona frequenti nobilium et eruditorum hominum apud
summos princtpes, impegit, quod tollerem resurrectionem, propterea quod concederem
non asseverarem, a/iguos in adventu domini zon morituros, Alter in publica et
ordinaria professione impegit haeresim, quod inducerem lectionem contradictoriam
ei quam sequitur ecclesia.

The two writers whom Erasmus here repels (1 quote from the
Annotations affixed to the fifth edition) are evidently Lee and
Standish. After he has despatched their arguments he addresses
their personS in the following lively tone:
1 Ought we to correct this to “ calamum,mihi strinxerunt” in accordance with Wadding ?
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 51

Amant. πρωτοκαθεδρίας in scholis, gaudent iisdem in opiparis conviviis, amant

salutari Rabbini, venantur mitras εἰ adbbatias, et adulantes hominibus adulterant
sermonem dei, suisque traditiunculis obruunt scintillam charitatis evangelicae ;
‘the words which we have italicised being peculiarly ad hominem.
The other references which Standish is said to have made in
his demonstration of Erasmian heresy may be illustrated in a
similar manner. His wrong belief with regard to the Eucharist
is probably a reference to the notes on 1 Cor. xi.: while the matri-
mony-dissolving doctrine may equally be referred to the same
epistle, c. vii. 1, where Erasmus translates, “Bonum est homini
uxorem non attingere.” Stunica makes the same complaint, de-
manding that the old translation mulierem be retained. At all
events it is perfectly clear from what precedes that Standish was
one of the leading English opponents of the Erasmian text.
It would be interesting, therefore, to find Standish’s MS. against
Erasmus, which I do not think has been published, and to examine
whether there is any special animus displayed in the matter of
1 John v. 7. This I have not yet succeeded in doing, though |
I have, I believe, found the book which Bale describes as ‘“ Ser-
mones ad vulgum.” For unless I am mistaken (unfortunately
the limited time that I have been able to give to the point
has prevented a very complete enquiry) this must be the book,
Mus. Britt. 8 E. m1, Liber sermonum sive lectionum super Evan-
gelium. It has the name of John Standishe and the date 1532
on the first leaf. Also the name of Arundel Lumley. At the
end there is the note, “John Gyfford de Stansted me possidet.”
This codex also is mixed paper and vellum, the arrangement being
very simple, a double paper leaf inside a double vellum leaf if I
remember rightly, and the paper being water-marked on page 12
with a pair of scales in a circle’. Elsewhere, I think, it will be
Ὁ The following are instances of the occur- Pair of scales) on paper of the reign of
rence of these water-marks: in circle ) Henry VI.
Pair of scales :Chamberlain’s accounts for ate te I have noted it also in
borough of Lynn in the a Greek Lectionary
year 1416, brought 50 years ago
» » In Bordeaux documents from Chanea in Crete,
for the year 1412. and now in the posses-
᾿ yy Paston letters for the reign sion of Prof. Benton of
of Henry VI.: 1422— Newark, Delaware.
1460. iS % is also found amongst Jan-
772
52 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

found to have a crown or a rising sun or something of the sort.

The book then shews the genealogy:
Henry Standish
John Standish

John Ghitora of Stanstead in Essex

Lumley Library

British Museum.

This book might be worth examining, if one were on the

British Museum side of the Atlantic’.
With the exception of the verification, or, if necessary, re-
determination of the codices used by the writer or writers of the
Montfort Codex, we may now say that the history of the MS. is
pretty completely known. There is no water-mark, as I am in-
formed, in the paper of the MS. It may be of interest to subjoin
the result of enquiries made with regard to Thomas Clement,
through whom the Montfort Codex passed on its way from Roy,
or Froy, to Chark; we have no means of determining whether
sen’s collection of water- merly belonged. The point is not however
marks several times in of any moment to our enquiry.
the latter part of the 1 From the foregoing I think it will be
fifteenth century, but evident that Cooper must be wrong in affirm-
the dates of these are ing (A thenae Cantab. 1. 55) that Standish was
not easy to identify, e.g. not an author. The following references of
" Nos. 258, 263, 264, 278, Cooper will be useful in further enquiries.
279. Richardson’s Godwin, Burnet’s Hist. Reform.,
The rising sun is found in the Paston let- Wood’s A¢henae Oxon. (ed. Bliss 1. 92), Grey-
with IHS in the ters during the reign of SJriars Chron. 31. 34, Tanner’s Bib. Brit.,
centre Henry VI., and I note Ellis’s Letters (3)1. 187, Fuller’s Worthies,
it also in a document of Fiddes’s Wolsey 155, Knight’s Lrasmus,
the reign of Edward IV. Rymer XIV. 12, Le Neve’s Fas¢z, Hall’s Chron.
year 1416. 705, 756, Dodd’s Ch. Hist. 1. 186, MS. Rich-
On the whole, these furnish*a date a ardson 8, Willis’ S¢ Asaph. To which add
little too early for Henry Standish to ‘have for account of John Standish, MS. Corp.
preached the sermons and written the MS. Christ. Oxon. CCCviII. f. 44. Cooper notes
On the other hand a mistake may have been the ancient Lancashire settlement of the
made by the writer from whom Bale took the Standish family, the fact of his studying at
reference in consequence of the occurrence the two English Universities, his becoming
of Standish’s name in the book, for so many warden of the London convent before being
of the titles in Bale and other writers of provincial of the order, where he was also
the same school go back to the Lumley buried ; the date of his death is given by
library, to which the book in question for- Cooper as July 9, 1535.
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 33
Roy left the MS. among the Franciscans, or disposed of it, and
it is very little use guessing at such points as whether Clement
ever owned any other of the MSS. which we have been discussing;
but without any such speculation, we can give the leading facts
in the history of this learned man and reconstruct a portion of
his library.

IX. Of John Clement and his books.

There is a little complication which I have not been able wholly

to unravel, between Thomas Clement and John Clement, although
there is good ground, as will be shewn presently from an Oxford
MS., for referring the confusion to a misunderstood abbreviation.
We find the authorities sometimes giving the name one way and
sometimes another and sometimes (e.g. Pitseus) as if they were
two separate personages with experiences so similar as to be absurd.
I give the name as John Clement on the faith of Antony Wood
and other authorities such as the roll-book of the Royal College
of Physicians which makes frequent reference to Clement as John.
John Clement, then, was born in Yorkshire as is supposed and studied
at the University of Oxford, where he seems to have successfully
combined a zeal for the new learning with a devotion to the old
religion at a time when Greek and Catholicism were not walking
arm in arm.
From Oxford he passed into the family of Sir Thomas More as
tutor to his children, amongst whom is to be reckoned an adopted
daughter of the name of Margaret who returned to Clement in
affection what she took from him in Greek, and of whose combined
wifeliness and wit he speaks in affecting terms after her death.
In 1519 he returned to Oxford and settled in Corpus Christi
College, having been appointed by Wolsey his Rhetoric reader, a
position from which he speedily climbed to the Regius Professorship
of Greek. Some idea of his popularity may be gathered from the
language of Sir Thomas More concerning him; ‘Clemens meus
Oxonii profitetur, auditoris tanto quanto non ante quispiam. Mirum
est quam placeat et deametur universis. Quibus bonae literae
propemodum sunt invisae tamen illum charum habent, audiunt
54 , ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

et paulatim mitescunt.” Translation seems to have been his forte,

if we may judge from the summary of his work given in Wood's
Athenae which includes the epistles of Gregory of Nazianzum, the
Homilies of Nicephorus Calixtus, the epistles of Pope Celestin the
first to Cyril bishop of Alexandria, together with a volume “epigram-
matum et aliorum carminum.” He held the office, however, but a
short time, for we find that in 1521 or 1522 he had resigned his
position in order to devote himself to medicine, and Lupset had
been appointed in his room’.
The rest of his history can be gathered best from the Annals
of the Royal College of Physicians. On Feb. 1, 1528, Clement
was elected a Fellow, on the 16th of April following an Elector,
and was one of the Physicians sent by Henry VIII. to Wolsey,
when he lay languishing at Esher in 1528. His later life was
affected by the changes in the ruling religion; he was in exile
during a part of Edward VI.’s reign, apparently at Louvain. Thus
we find under date 1551 the following notice, ‘“ Postridie Divi
Thomae apost. electus est in numerum electorum Tho. Huys vice
doctissimi viri /oannzs Clementis doctoris Lovanii peregrinantis
religionis gratia.” But on the 19th of March 1554 we find him
re-admitted (Mary being now on the throne) among the Electors
of the College. ‘Quo tempore in comitiis primo post reditum
Louvainio apparuit Zoannes Clemens, doctor et elector, cujus reditu
fortuna effectum est ut sint electores novem.”
In 1555 we find a note which shews that old age was beginning
to ‘claw him in its clutch’; “Io. Clementi doctori data facultas ut pro
arbitrio accedat ad Collegium tum propter senectutem tum propter
adversam valetudinem, nisi cum electio Praesidentis aut gravis
aliqua causa aut honor Collegii postulat.”
On the accession of Elizabeth he again retired into foreign life,
and does not seem to have ever returned.
It is curious that two, if not three of the possessors of the
Montfort Codex should have had remarkable persecution to face on
account of their religion, Clement as a Catholic, Chark as a Puritan,
and Roy as a Protestant (though of what type we hardly know).
1 See a letter of More’s “successit enim Clementi meo, nam is se totum addixit rei
medicae.”
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. “ss
In 1569 or previously Clement gave his assistance towards the
Polyglot of Arias Montanus, by lending him a copy of the Pentateuch
which had belonged to Sir Thomas More, and which Montanus
notes in his preface in the following terms: “Est etiam nobis a
Clemente Anglo, Philosophiae et Medicinae doctore, qui in hisce
regionibus propter Christianam religionem exulat, exhibitum Pen-
tateuchi Graeci, ex Thomae Mori Bibliotheca, elegantissimum
exemplar.” This copy will be described more at length presently.
On July 1, 1572, he died in the Blocstrate, St John’s parish,
Mechlin, and was buried the following day in the Cathedral Church
of St Rumbold’s.
After the Codex Montfort, the following MSS. are known to
have been in his hands.
The Pentateuch already alluded to, more exactly to be described
as the Glasgow Octateuch: the MS. has been at Glasgow in the
University Library certainly since the time when it was there collated
for the Holmes and Parsons edition of the LX X. It appears from
a minute of the Senate of Glasgow University to have come to them
through Foulis the printer; but a note in the book shews that
Clement gave it to his own College at Oxford. This note is near
the top of the first page and runs thus: ‘ /oannes Clemens medicus
dedit Collegio Corpor. Chri. Oxon ut oret pro fidelibus defunctis,
A°.D. 1563 Octobr. 7.” From this note it would seem as if Arias
Montanus must have had the use of the book at least six years
before the publication of his polyglot. There are other notes on
the page which have either been cut by the binder, or are other-
wise unintelligible. The MS. is written on cotton-paper.
Besides this, Clement possessed a MS., now in the library of
Magdalen College, Oxford, and described in Coxe’s Catalogue as
follows:
Cod. XVI. Codex partim membranaceus et partim chartaceus, sec. xv. olim
peculium Thomae Clementis.”’
A collection of questiones shilesccliions amongst them Tract. distinctionum alias
formalitatum Petri Thomae Ord. Minorum.

1 [ am indebted for my knowledge ofthese I have not yet had the pleasure of seeing the
points to my friend Alexander Blacklock of MS.
Glasgow University and Professor Dickson.
56 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

Mr Wilson, the librarian of the College, has kindly given me

the order of the leaves in the codex, as follows: a quire of six leaves
(doubled into twelve) in the order VPPVPV: one of the most
eccentric arrangements I have seen. He also remarks that he is
“not quite sure that Thomas should not be Ihoannes.” This explains
the confusion that has arisen in Clement’s name.
The Clement Library is now as follows:
Montfort Codex Glasgow Octateuch Quest. Philos.
Roy . ee Clement
|
Williams Clement Magd. Coll. Oxon.

Clement Corp. Christi, Oxon.

|
Chark Glasgow Univ.
&c.

X. Further notes on vellum-paper codices.

It will be necessary now to ask the question whether there are
any directions in which we may extend our enquiries as to the
origin of the three MSS. which we have shewn reason for grouping
together as being of approximately the same time and place of pro-
duction. At present I see nothing that is likely to add to our
knowledge of the Caius Psalter, The other two MSS. invite
enquiry in two directions: first, as to whether their vellum-paper
arrangement is a local peculiarity, second whether their water-
marks can be identified. And although I am not by any means
sanguine (especially being now so far out of reach of large collections
of early books as I am) of arriving at the complete solution of the
two points, I will set down such information as I have been able
to acquire.
The arrangement of the quires in vellum-paper MSS. has not
yet received the attention it deserves. I think it will be found
that in general there are two types, one in which the leaves are
equal in number from each material, another in which a number of
leaves of paper are laid between two leaves of vellum and doubled
to form a quite: so that a quire would be denoted by VP*V + VP*V,
where z is the number of sheets of paper,
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 57
Illustrations of this may be seen in the following MSS. :
Camb. Uniy. Lib. Dd. x. 63, VP*V for half-quire.
” ” pf ὑΠ Ff. i. 34; ΕΝ 3) ”
Mus. Brit. Har/. 3161, ΡΥ... δ
and sometimes VP*V.

These are all that I have at present been able to add to the
Leicester Codex and Valerius Maximus, which are both of the
general type, VP®°V to the half-quire. Of these three MSS. again
two may be suspected to have a common origin, viz. the second and
third, for in addition to their singular arrangement they are both
water-marked with the ‘three summits,’ surmounted by a cross,
which may be seen in Sotheby, Principia Typographica (Paper-
marks), p. 58. This water-mark, according to Sotheby, represents
the arms of Bohemia, and is frequently found in books printed in
Germany and Italy in the 15th century. I am not satisfied yet
about the Bohemian arms, but in the present case it is easy to
verify the other part of the statement, for the Harleian Codex was ~
written in Bologna, as appears from a note in it. The Codex (it
is a copy of Lactantius) is also dated in the year 1427, and it should
not be omitted that it has catch-words from quire to quire. Out
of the three codices therefore which we are able to compare with
the vellum-paper arrangement of the Valerius Maximus and the
Leicester Codex, two may be taken to be Italian codices of the
fifteenth century. This conclusion is an important one, in case it
should be shewn that, with any degree of probability, we are dealing
with singularities belonging to a particular time and place.

XI. On early paper-marks.

The subject of early paper-marks or, as’ they are commonly called,
water-marks, is still involved in much unnecessary obscurity; and
not a few of the attempts which have been made to classify them
have made the matter worse confounded by missing the only two
points that we want to know in reference to the manufacture of
paper, viz. its place and its date. And the mere collection of figures
of water-marks, without any information on these points, is com-:
paratively an idle sport. What is wanted to be known is whether
L. C. 8
 58 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

a particular mark belongs to one or more factories, z.e: whether

it is a private mark, or a government mark, the area over which
the manufactured paper is diffused, and the time during which any
particular paper-mark is in use. So that the enquiry can hardly be
separated from a ‘History of the Invention and Manufacture of
_ Paper,’ and it is evident from what has been previously said on the
subject in these pages, that no distinction occurs between MSS. on
paper and printed books. It is especially in reference to paper
MSS. that we require further information. For example, there are
no less than four different water-marks in the Leicester Codex, three
being found in the original manuscript and one on a slip of the paper
with which the book has been repaired. It is, perhaps, not too
much to say that if an adequate study had been made of these
water-marks we could announce at once the district in which the
book was written and, within moderate limits, the time of its pro-
duction, and also throw light upon the pes and time of the hand
of the repairer.
It is surprising that no one has yet undertaken this enquiry,
especially as the paper-marks in the Leicester Codex have not.
altogether escaped the notice of collators. In one page of the
MS. the paper is so sensibly indented that it has been marked
over with a pencil by some student of the book. This prominent
mark is the one which occurs most frequently in the book, the
others being either wholly or partly so faint as to defy copying ©
with any degree of certainty. Two of these marks belong to
varieties of paper to which the scribe apparently betook himself
in despair on finding several sheets of the paper which he was
working with to be so faulty that they would not take writing
on both sides. What is true as to the practicability of tracing
the Leicester Codex by its paper-marks is also true of the Valerius
Maximus in the British Museum which I think I have shewn to be
a companion volume. For its paper is water-marked throughout
on every sheet, I think, with the device of a horse-shoe suspended
by a wire; at least this describes it most nearly. But although I
have searched many MSS. and early-printed books and collections
of paper-marks I have not yet succeeded in identifying it, any more
than that of the Leicester MS.
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 59
The matter stands thus: from the. fact that we have not suc-
ceeded in identifying any one of the water-marks amongst the
printed books of the fifteenth century accessible to us, nor amongst
’ the water-marks copied from them by collectors, we incline to
the belief that the MSS. in question are earlier than the era of
printing. And if this be so, and if in the period to which this
leads us, we can find no English documents from which a similar
water-mark can be extracted, that is, neither is it found in the
Lynn records which cover the period of time in question and are
sufficiently near to Cambridge to have been supplied from the
same paper factory, nor can we trace it in the Paston letters which
belong to a large part of the time in debate, and to an adjoining "
county, supposing the MS. again to have been written by the
Cambridge Grey Friars, nor can we find any other similar water-
marks amongst English documents, we are almost forced to a
suspicion that the paper was of a foreign origin and so remote
in its place of production that it came in as a book and not as
an article of merchandise.
The accompanying figures shew the principal water-marks,
then, of the Leicester MS., and we must enquire whether there is
anything about them that suggests a foreign manufacture, Marking

A A
Fol. 170 Fol. 68
as on Fol. 170 but reversed

them respectively A, B, C we put the repairer’s paper C on one side,

and there is besides a remaining one which is so hopelessly faint
that it is impossible to trace more than a certain number of doubtful
lines; B is not much better; we cannot even tell whether we have
8—2
60 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

got it the right way up. Our enquiry then is shut up to the
commonest of the water-marks marked A, which is found some-
times one way up and sometimes another, and with such slight
modifications as always occur in the size of the brass figures which
produce the paper-marks in the moulds, nearly throughout the book. |
Now the first suggestion that seems to be likely is that the
figure is a trident, and that it may be a play upon the name of
the City of Trent (Tridentum). We know from Braunius, De
Civitatibus orbts terrarum, that it was a disputed point as to whether
the city derived its name from the trident of Neptune, the marks
of which were exhibited at a certain spot in the city, or from the
three mountain summits visible therefrom. Now if we could infer
that this latter conception is the one which we frequently find in
fifteenth century paper (which Sotheby, on the other hand, affirms
to be the Bohemian arms) we could’ easily take the step of identi-
fying the Leicester water-mark with the other conception, that of
the trident. Unhappily we have no evidence as far as I know
as to the establishment of a paper-factory in the city of Trent;
if we knew it to have existed there, or if we were sure that the
figure was a trident, or if the well-known mark of the three summits
could be identified with the city of Trent, all would be compara-
tively easy. But three strings to one’s bow are little better than
one when they are all weak’.
B ς
Fol. 64 Fol. 42
on mended leaf

1 Three summits is the coat of the family province of Arezzo). Three summits sur-
of Del Monte di Monte Sansavino (in the mounted by atree is the badge of the Tuscan
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 61

Another suggestion presents itself. The earliest known Italian

paper was manufactured in the district of Ancona; here we are
on firm ground; the only question that has ever arisen being
whether the paper manufactured was bombycine paper or the more
modern linen paper. Further we know from the earliest descriptions
of this manufactory’ that every sheet sent out had an attached
mark, a point which settles the question, in my judgment, against
silk paper; for I have never yet heard of nor seen a special mark
attached to the earlier oriental paper. Last of all we gather from
Orlandi, Notzzia delle citta d’ Italia, that the device of the city of
Ancona is a rastrello with three teeth*, and it is quite possible that
this heraldic figure is what the paper manufacturer has attempted
to represent.
Here then we have a perfectly intelligible explanation of the
principal paper-mark of the Leicester Codex. The fourth paper-
mark-is, I suspect, not Italian. It is, however, too faint for us to
determine accurately the device. For the convenience of those
who are occupied in these and similar researches I have some
thoughts of publishing presently a collection of the principal dated
water-marks of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
And now to sum up this part of our enquiry: there is reason
to believe that before the Leicester Codex came into the possession
of the Cambridge Franciscans, it was to be found upon Italian soil ;
for there ts a suspicion derived from the handwriting, from the
vellum-paper arrangement in the quires, and from the paper-mark,
which seems to indicate that it is az /talian production not half
a century anterior to the invention of printing; but it must be
remembered that this conclusion is not of so great a probable weight
in the matter of the reasonings upon which it is based as the argu-
ments by which we referred the book to Franciscan hands. If
however our conclusion be valid we shall probably some day discover
the ancestor of the MS. in some one of the Italian libraries.
city Mont-Alci: cf. Litta, Famiglie Italiane. 1 See Bartolus, De Insigniis δέ Armis,
The coat of the city of Catacium also shews quoted in Tiraboschi, Storia della Letter. Ital.
three summits under a crown, cf. Ughelli, v.96. Bartolus died’in 1359, so that this gives
᾿ Ital. Sac. 1X. 355: and the Marquises of Del _an early date for water-marked paper.
Monte S. Maria nell’ Umbria shew on their 2 I quote here from memory only, having
coat six summits in pyramid (Litta, Vol. tv). _ failed to find a copy of this book.
62 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

XII. On the non-Biblical portions of the Leicester Codex.

There are several patristic tracts or portions of tracts in the
Leicester Codex, which deserve to be printed, if for no other
reason, than because they assist us to determine the genealogical
relations of groups of MSS. They are as follows: .
F. 159 Ὁ. An explanation of the Creed and the Seven Councils.
Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα θεὸν καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς: οὕτω φρονῶν kal, διομολογῶν ἀπαρατρέπτως τὴν ἐν
τῇ καθολικῇ καὶ ἀποστολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐφιδρυμένην τε καὶ κηρυσσομένην πίστιν τὰς ἁγίας
καὶ oikoupevixas ἑπτὰ συνόδους ἀποδέχομαι: τὴν 'μὲν πρώτην, ἅτα (1. dye) δή, “Apecov καὶ
Ν > i. ε ‘ ΄ > ΄ ‘A 4 U4 } Ν so” ‘

τοὺς ὁμοφρονοῦντας αὐτῶν (1. αὐτῷ), ἅμα τῆς βδελυκτῆς αὐτῶν κτισματολατρείας, διαρρήξα-
‘ ε -“ > -“ 2 συ A a a δ, τς ’ ,

σάν τε καὶ καθελοῦσαν: τὴν δὲ δευτέραν ὡς τὸν φρενοβλαβῆ Μακεδόνιον τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς
χοροστασίας ἐξοστρακήσασάν τε καὶ ἐκτεμοῦσαν, ᾿Αρείῳ παραπλησίαν τὴν μανίαν ἐκμεμη-
vora: ἐν κτίσματι γὰρ οὗτος τὸ πανάγιον καὶ παντοῦργον πνεῦμα τιθὴς (1. τιθεὶς) πνεῦμα
κτιματολατρεῖν (1. κτισματολατρεῖν) οὐκ ἠσχύνετο: GAN ἄγε δή" Kai τὴν τρίτην οὖσαν
~ ~ > > 4 > 9. ἊΣ: ὦ , ‘ ‘ 4 >

καθαιρέτην τοῦ δυσεβοῦς (1. δυσσεβοῦς) Νηστορίου καὶ τῆς αὐτῷ καινοποιηθείσης θεοστυ-
γοῦς δεισιδαιμονίας" οὗτος γὰρ τὸν ἀδιαιρέτως καὶ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἐνωθέντα τῷ θεῷ λόγῳ
(( λόγον) ὁλικὸν (1. ὑλικὸν) ἄνθρωπον τολμηρῶς καὶ ἀφρόνως τῆς θεϊκῆς τοῦ λόγου δια-
σπῶν ὑποστάσεως, ἰδιούπόστατον αὐτὸν ἐτερατολόγει τε καὶ ἐφαντάζετο: διὸ καὶ ψιλὸν
ἄνθρωπον τὸν σαρκὶ ἐπιφανέντα υἱὸν καὶ λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ὀνειρώξας ἀκολούθως ὁ τρισ-
” ‘ ie | ,, en . , a a 2 , > 4 ε

ἄθλιος καλεῖν τὴν παναγίαν θεοτόκον θεοτόκον κυρίως ἀπηρνήσατο. τὴν δὲ τετάρτην, ὡς
τὸν δυστυχῆ Εὐτυχῆν καὶ Awoxopov τὸν ἀλαστόρα καταρρήξασάν [re] καὶ ἀναθεματίσασαν
μετὰ τῆς φαντασιώδους αὐτῶν φρενοβλαβίας καὶ πάσης αὐτῶν τῆς συμμορίας: τὴν γὰρ
τοῦ κυρίου σάρκα μὴ εἶναι ἡμῖν ὁμοούσιον ἐληρώδουν: ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ δύο μὲν φύσεων τὴν ἕνωσιν
γενέσθαι: εἰς μίαν δὲ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν συναναλωθῆναι φύσιν, μηδετέρας ἀποσώζουσαν τὰ
ἰδιώματα, μήτε τῆς θεϊκῆς μήτε μὴν τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης" καὶ τὴν πέμπτὴην δὲ ὡς ἐκτεμοῦσάν
τε καὶ ἀποτεφρώσασαν τέλεον τὰ ἐπ᾽ ὀλέθρῳ τῶν γεγενηκότων ἀναριπιζόμενα μιαρὰ δόγ-
A > , ΄ A > ? > /, “ἢ id > La A [ὦ

. ματά τε καὶ μυήματα τοῦ δυσσεβοῦς Νηστορίου τοῦ τῆς Βασιλίδος ἀθέως ἱεραρχήσαντος"
καὶ Θεοδώρου τοῦ Μοψουεστίας ἀθεώτερόν ἐπισκοπιάσαντος, αὐτούς τε καὶ πάντας τοὺς τὴν
αὐτὴν αὐτοῖς ματαιφροσύνην (1. ματαιοφροσύνην) ἐκνοσησάντας: οὐ μήν" ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δή" καὶ
“ ’ > Ὗ

ὡς διασπάσασάν τε καὶ ἐκθερίσασαν ‘Opryévnv, Δίδυμον, Ἐὐάγριον, Ἑλληνόφρονι λογισμῷ

" , -

΄ , Ν
καὶ ἀσυνέτῳ γνώμῃ εἰς ἔσχατον βύθον ἀθεότητος ἐκπεπτωκότας: βάθμους γὰρ καὶ ὑποστά-
σεις θεότητος ἀναπλάσαντες Kal ψυχῶν προὐπάρξεις καὶ τῆς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον αὐτῶν γενέ-
“ ” -“ ν a -

σεως (cod. γενσεως) ἀπορίας τε καὶ ἀποπτώσεις ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ὑποστήσαντες, εἰς διάφορά τε
καὶ πολυειδῆ σώματα perayyilovras, ταύτας καὶ μεταβάλλοντας καὶ τέλος κολάσεως καὶ
= . > >
δαιμόνων ἀποκαταστάσεις" τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον ἀπὸ κοιλίας ἐρέυγόμενοι ἀθυροστάμως (1. abv-
ροστόμως) ἐμυθολόγησάν τε καὶ κατάσπασαν (]. κατέσπασαν) τοὺς ἀμφὶ ᾿Ονώριον καὶ
Σέργιον καὶ Μακάριον τοὺς τερατολόγους καὶ παράφρονας ἅμα αὐτοῖς καὶ τοὺς τὴν αὐτῶν
βυσοῦβηαν ἀκρατῶς ἐναπομαξαμένυνε, μετὰ τῆς ἐκφύλου καὶ ἀλλοκότου αὐτῶν πλασματο-
λογίας" ἐν γὰρ θέλημα, καὶ μίαν ἐνέργειαν τῷ ἐκ δύο ἀξαρατρέπτων φύσεων πεύνεσς
χριστῷ τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν κακῶς οἱ δείλαιοι ἐπεγράφοντο. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ τὸ δεύ-.
τερον ἱερὰν καὶ μέγάλην σύνοδον τοὺς εἰκονομάχους καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Χριστομάχους καὶ ἁγιο-
κατηγόρους ἀποσκυβαλίσασάν τε καὶ καταβάλλουσαν' σὺν αὐτοῖς δὲ καὶ τὴν βδελυκτὴν
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 63;-

καὶ Μανιχαϊκὴν αὐτῶν αἵρεσιν" τὸ γὰρ τοῦ κυρίον ἡμῶν ae: Χριστοῦ ὁμοούσιον ἡμῖν
ἅγιον σῶμα γράφειν εἰκονικῶς ἐμυσάττοντο, τὸ ἄγραπτον καὶ ἀπερίγραπτον αὐτοῦ κατα-
βακχεύοντες: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μὴ εἶναι ἡμῖν ὁμοούσιον μανικῶς συμπεραίνοντες" ταύτας οὖν
τὰς5 ἁγίας
el?
καὶ\ οἰκουμενικὰς
oo: OT
ἑπτὰSa συνόδους
, > ,
ἀποδέχομαι, > ,
ἀναθεματίζων odsa ἀνεθεμάτισαν,
> ie
gt Η , a 2 , ¢ yey
κατασπαζόμενος δὲ καὶ μεγαλύνων ots ἐπευφήμησαν: αὕτη μου τῆς πίστεως καὶSaτῶν
,

εἰς ταύτην. ἀνηκόντων καὶ περὶ αὐτὴν ὑφισταμένων ὁμολογία. καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ ἡ ἐλπίς, οὐκ
ἐμοὶ δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσιν ὅσοις εὐσεβεῖν μεμελέτηται- καὶ τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ ἀκιβδή-
λου δόξης τῶν χριστιανῶν θεῖος ἔρως προσπέφυκεν ἔχεσθαι.

This is followed by the lives of the Apostles.

Πέτρος καὶ ᾿Ανδρέας ἀδελφοί, ἐκ πατρὸς Ἰωάννου, μητρὸς δὲ Ἰωανά, ἀπὸ Βηθσαϊδὰ
τῆς πόλεως, ἁλιεῖς τὴν τέχνην. καὶ ὁ μὲν Πέτρος γενόμενος πρῶτος ἐπίσκοπος ἐν ᾿Αν-
τιοχείᾳ, ἔπειτα καὶ ἐν Ῥώμῃ, τελειοῦται ἐπὶ Νέρωνος σταυρωθεὶς ἐπὶ κεφαλῆς. ᾿Ανδρέας
as Ἰωάννης μαθηταὶ τοῦ προδρόμον. ᾿Ανδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς Πέτρου κηρύξας ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι
ἐν Πάτραις σταυροῦται ὑπὸ τοῦ Αἰγεάτου.
Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάννης ἀδελφοὶ ἐκ πατρὸς Ζεβεδαίου, μητρὸς ᾿Ιεροκλείας ἀπὸ Βηθσαϊδά,
ἁλιεῖς" καὶ 6 μὲν Ἰάκωβος ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ὑπὸ “Hpwddrov (]. Ἡρώδου) τελειοῦται ξίφει:
Ἰωάννης 6 εὐαγγελιστὴς ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ μεταστέλλεται ἑξήκοντα ὀκτὼ ἔτη
τῆς ἀναλήψεως τοῦ ἀρνίον
Φίλιππος ἐκ πατρὸς Φιλισάνου, μητρὸς δὲ Σοφίας, ἀπὸ Βηθσαϊδά, ἡνίοχος τὸ ἐπιτή-
δευμα, ἐν Ἱεραπόλει μαρτυρεῖ:
Θωμᾶς [add ὁ] καὶ Ἰοῦδας, δίδυμος ὧν μετὰ ἀδελφῆς λεγομένης (cod. λιγωμένης)
Λισίας ἐκ πατρὸς Διοφανοῦς, μητρὸς δὲ Ῥώας, ἀπὸ ᾿Αντιοχείας, ἐν Ἰνδίᾳ τῇ Καλαμιτίδι
τελειοῦται περιδαρείς. :
eaten tel (. Βαρθολομαῖος) ἐ ἐκ πατρὸς ΣΣωσθένου (cod. δ σοσϑε μον,μητρὸς Οὐρανίας,
πολιαρίτης (sic) εἴτοι (1. ἤτοι) λάχανα φυτεύων ἐν ᾿Αρβανῷ πόλει τῆς ᾿Αρμενίας σταυροῦται.
Θαδδαῖος 6 καὶ Λευέως 6 αὐτὸς καὶ Ἰοῦδας ᾿Ιακώβου λέγεται ἐκ πατρὸς Νεκροφανοῦς,
μητρὸς δὲ Σελήνης, Ἰταλικὸς ἐν Ῥεβεντῇ (1. ἹΡαβεννῇ) βλεμμίῳ ἀναρτηθεὶς καὶ τοξευθεὶς
τελειοῦται. :
Ἰάκωβος 6 τοῦ ᾿Αλφαίου ἐκ πατρὸς “Avdpovos, μητρὸς δὲ Εὐτυχίας ἀπὸ Ἱερᾶς πόλεως
(1. λαοξόος) τὴν τέχνην ἐν Ἰνδίᾳ τῆς βαρβαρικῆς τελειοῦται συεληλαστός:
Ματθαῖος, 6 καὶ Acti, τελώνης τὸ ἐπιτήδευμα, 6 αὐτὸς καὶ Ἐυαγγελιστής, ἐκ πατρὸς
Ῥούκου, μητρὸς δὲ Χεροχίας, ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐν Ἤρῃ τῆς Παρθείας τελειοῦται λίθοις.
Σίμων ὁ Κανανίτης ὃς καὶ Ζηλωτὴς λέγεται, ἀριστοκλήτου τοῦ κυρίου εἰς τοὺς γάμους,
ἐκ πατρὸς Καλλίωνος, μητρὸς δὲ ᾿Ακμίας ἀπὸ Σάλήμ, σταύρῳ προσηλωθείς.
ἸἸουδὰς Ἰσκαριώτης ἀπελθὼν ἀπήξατο: καὶ ἀντ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰσῆλθε Ματθίας.
Παῦλος καὶ Μάρκος καὶ Λουκᾶς ἐκ τῶν ο΄: καὶ ὃ μὲν Παῦχος ἀπὸ Ταρσοῦ τῆς Κιλι-
κίας, ἀνατραφεὶς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ὑπὸ Fapakap (cod. Ῥαμαλλήλ), ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ. μέχρι
τοῦ Ἰλλυρικοῦ ᾿κηρύξας, ἐν Ῥώμῃ τελειοῦται ὑπὸ Ba γοῦν. ξίφει: ὁ δὲ Μάρκος ἐν ᾿Αλεξαν-
δρείᾳ τελειοῦται.

The foregoing extracts are followed on f. 161 by the limits of the

Patriarchates, as follows. As M. l’Abbé Martin attaches a good
deal of weight to the occurrence of this document in Cod. 346 and
64 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX

uses it to emphasise the Calabrian origin of the Ferrar-group, I have

given not only the Leicester text, but also the principal readings in
the MS. Cod. Ev. 556=Burdett-Coutts mt. 5, and some references
to the printed text of Leo the Philosopher, from whom it is derived
(Migne, Patr. Gr. cv. col. 329—386). I have only that part of
346 and Leo printed by Martin.
IIpGros' θρόνος καὶ πρώτη πατριαρχία Ἱεροσολύμων, ᾿Ιακώβου τοῦ ἀδελφοθέου καὶ
ἀποστόλου, αὐτόπτου καὶ ὑπηρέτου τοῦ λόγου γενομένου". καὶ μύστου τῶν ἀπορρήτων
καὶ ἀθεάτων αὐτοῦ μυστηρίων θεαμάτων, περιέχων πᾶσαν τὴν Παλαιστίνων" χώραν ἄχρι
᾿Αραβίας.
Δεύτερος θρόνος τοῦ ἀποστόλου Πέτρου ἀπὸ Ῥώμης μέχρι τῶν" ὁρίων Μαζῶν καὶ
Τάλλων", Σπανίας καὶ Φραγγίας", καὶ τοῦ Ἰλλυρικοῦ, μέχρι Ῥαδήρων, καὶ Ἡρακλέους"
[xai]® στηλῶν" καὶ Ὦκεανοῦ, τέλος ἔχοντος" εἰς δυσμὰς ἡλίου ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶ νεκρὰ ὕδατα
καὶ ἀκίνητα" ὑλώδη: ἐν ᾧ νῆσος εἰς τὰ ἄκρη τῶν ὠκεανῶν᾽" πελάγων πολύανδρος, χρισ-
τιανῶν ἄπειρον" πλῆθος" ἄχρι Ῥαβέννης καὶ Λαγοβάρδας"" καὶ Θεσσαλονίκης, Σκλάβων""
καὶ ᾿Αβάρων καὶ Σκυθῶν ἕως Δανουβίου ποταμοῦ τὰς ἐκκλησιαστικὰς ὁροθεσίας" ὡσαύτως
Σαρδανίαν"" καὶ Myyapixav'®, Καρθαγέννην᾽" καὶ μέρος τῶν Ἑ σπεριῶν, καὶ μέρος ris”
Σικελίας καὶ Καλαβρίας ἐν οἷς διαπνέουσιν"" ἄνεμοι θρασκίας" ἀρκτῶος rapyias™ xupeos™
καὶ 6° ζήφυρος" δυτικὸς λὺψ καὶ AvBovoros™.
Τρίτος θρόνος Κωνσταντινοπόλεως τοῦ πρωτοκλήτου" ᾿Ανδρέου καὶ τοῦ θεολόγου
Ἰωάννου τοῦ ὁ εὐαγγελιστοῦ, περιέχων πᾶσαν τῆς Ῥωμαικῆς ἐξουσίας τὴν βασιλείαν",
Εὐρώπην τε καὶ ᾿Ασίαν μέχρι τῆς δύσεως καὶ τὰς Κυκλάδας " τῶν νήσων ἄχρι Πόντου καὶ
Χερσῶνος καὶ ᾿Αβασγίας Χαλδίας καὶ Χαζαρίας Καπαδοκίας"" καὶ πάσης “Appevias™ (sic),
τὰ τοῦ Bopa™ κλήματα (]. κλίματα) περιλαμβάνων. ;
Τέταρτος θρόνος ᾿Αλεξανδρείας, Μάρκου τοῦ ἀποστόλου καὶ" εὐαγγελιστοῦ υἱοῦ Πέτρου
τοῦ ἀποστόλου, γενομένου νοταρίου' περιέχων ἕως τῆς ἐσωτέρας Ἰνδίας καὶ Αἰθιοπίας,

1 In B. C. there is prefixed γνωσις καὶ ἐπι- 18 B. C. Μαγαρικαν, 346 Μαγαρικας.

γνωσις Tov πατριαρχιων. 19 B. C. Καρθαγεννης, 346 Καρταγεννης.
2 Leic. yevopevos. 2 Leic. om. και... τῆς.
3. Β, Ὁ. παλαιστινην. 21 B. Ὁ. Ἑ οἱ.
4 B. C. om. των. 2 B. Ὁ. et 346 θρισκιας.
5 Β, Ὁ. γαλλιων. 33. Cod. 346 παραιας, Β. C. παρ
5. B. C. et Cod. 346 Φραγκιας. ᾿ 24 346 χωρεως.
7 Cod. 346 γαδειρων. % B. C. om. καὶ ὁ.
8 Cod. 346 ἡρακλειων. Β. C. ἡρακλεως. 26 B.C. et 346 λιβονοτος.
9.1, εἰς. + nat. 27 B. C. πρωτοκλιτου.
10 Leic. et B. C. στυλων. 3 B.C. και.
τ Cod. 346 ἐχον ro. 2 B.C. Bao. την εξ.
12 Cod. 346 ἀκηνητα. 80 B. C. κυλαδας.
18 Cod. 346 ’Qxeavov. 3 B.C. καππαδ.
M4 Β, Ὁ. ἀπειρος» ; 2 B.C. ἀρμενιας.
Leic. et B. C. λαγοβαρδων. 38. B. Ὁ, Boppa.
16 Leo. ἀθλαβων, Leic. Κλαιβων. 84. B.C. om. ἀπ. και.
iW B.C. et 346 Σαρδανιας.
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. τ 65

θρόνου ἀποστόλου Θωμᾶ, ἄχρι Μαρμαρικῆς καὶ ᾿Αφρικῆς καὶ Τριπόλεως" καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν
Αἰγυπτίαν" χώραν ἄχρι τῶν ὁρίων Παλαιστίνης τὰ τοῦ νότου κλήματα (]. κλίματα cum
B. C.) περιέχων :---
Πέμπτος θρόνος ᾿Αντιοχείας τοῦ κορυφαίου Πέτρου, περιέχων ἄχρι τῶν ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου ava-
τολῶν πορίαν ἐχόντων μηνῶν ἑπτά, ἕως τῆς Ἰβερίας καὶ ᾿Αρμενίας καὶ ᾿Ασβηγίας ὁ καὶ
μέχρι τῆς ἐσωτέρας ἐρήμου Περσῶν, Μήδων, Χαλδαίων ἕως τῆς ᾿Αράβων ἡγεμονίας, Πάρθων
καὶ Ἔλαμηήτων καὶ Μεσοποταμίας καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου" τοῦ ἀνατολικοῦ ἀνέμου ἔνθα 6 ἥλιος
ἀνατέλλει. ᾿
Cod. Β. C. pergit. ἔχει δὲ μητροπολίτας ιβ΄. Αἱ τάξεις τῶν κλιμάτων τῆς ἀφρικῆς καὶ
πῶς καλοῦνται. πρῶτον κλίμα ἡ λιβύη ἡ καλουμένη λούβιε καὶ μαίρακι κτὲέ.

It has been pointed out by Scrivener and Burgon and Martin

that the description of the five patriarchates is also to be found in
Cod. 211 of the Gospels at Venice. I have not examined the
menology in the Burdett-Coutts MS. in order to find Sicilian or
Calabrian traces. The whole of these MSS. were imported, |
believe, from Janina in Epirus; but this does not of itself militate
against the Abbé’s theory, since books may move east as well as
west. But I shall be curious to notice whether he is not soon
involved in the whole of the New Testament problems even with
the isolated Calabrian codices.
The subscriptions to the Gospels in B. C. agree closely with the
Ferrar-group : ¢.g.
ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ ματθαῖον εὐαγγελίου" ἐγράφη ἑβραϊστὶ ἐν παλαιστείνι (sic), μετὰ η΄ ἔτη τῆς
ἀναλήψεως τοῦ κυ. ἔχει δὲ ῥήματα βῴφκβ'- ἔχει δὲ στίχους βφξ.
εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ pdpKov* ἐγράφη ῥωμαϊστὶ ἐν> ῥώμῃ
ΒΨ
μετὰ ‘ ιβ' ἔτη τῆς ἀναλήψεως τοῦ
κυρίου" ἔχει δὲ ῥήματα χίλια ἑξακόσια ἑβδομήκοντα πέντε. ott χις΄.
εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ λουκᾶν ἐγράφη ἑλληνιστὶ εἰς ἀλεξανδρίαν τὴν μεγάλην μετὰ. ..... τῆς
ἀναλήψεως τοῦ κυ' ἔχει δὲ ῥήματα γωγ΄- στίχους Py’. :
εὐαγγέλιον ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ w ἐγράφη ἑλληνιστὶ εἰς ἔφεσον μετὰ ἔτη N τῆς ἀναλήψεως τοῦ
κυ" ἔχει δὲ ῥήματα adn ἔχει δὲ στίχους βκδ΄- ἐπὶ δομετιανοῦ τοῦ βασίλεως.

It will be seen that these agree almost identically with the

Ferrar-Abbott subscriptions: for the text we must wait until
Dr Scrivener publishes his collation. We shall need at the same

% B.C. αἰγυπτιων. : 38. sic. B.C. ἀφιλιω. 1. ᾿Απηλιώτου and cf.

3% B.C. ἀβασγιας (om. kat). Arist. Meteor. i. 6.
37 Β, Ὁ, ἐλαμιτων.
Le Cc 9
 a ra, ye
ie
ic, προ

: Ἢ

66. ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX. —

time further particulars of Cod. 348 at Milan which M, Martin
‘attaches to the Calabrian family, and of Cod. 211 at Venice whic
shews somewhat similar ‘peculiarities.

ee
ay
1ee

CAMBRIDGE:
PRINTED BY 6. J. CLAY; M.A. AND SONS,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Pa *
 bL NO ry YHMAOA
- aan »» ἐῶ N ao - Γ. »
os ΩΝ
ἐν ϑ a a. ὰ “Ὁ δῶν.

by Ss e o ΡΟ ΞΞ 6 ae oN ra

ae
ttt)
δ.
ae
To
=
a
afi 1 527 το
/ Ἵ ὃ ‘

a | ΤᾺ
; ~
ee». es | ;
ting,
IS spunupy
τὰ aN
: aipuequey
vs, No

6 “Sy '
τ ΝΣ
baa) τ ts ; KY OA)ΟΣΣΟ MO 3 ys
|. uOpsinDS
ze "ν᾿ > Ξ
2 Yo « Ι &
: Ἂ
(a, δὴ ἧς, ἘΞΤᾺ
ra \ ——\ a

πῇ».
Uuosfvs
{Ὧ
—
WG bay ὃ x 3
cea
ο
een δ ά
soonog ony togΓΑ : =
a ζ 0 ἢ g mos -
| oe ἅ ae ———
Av : =i
eel
: ἊΣ ον a Ξ
ἘΝ Ξ
4, $ i Ξε
ὃ : ‘ para 4: 3 : Ἐ--.
etal
al
=noel
ibaa,
alias
taaches
λουκεοίνοις, ~rGrawros a ας...'«ὁλοξκσαν εὐνουΐ συκεές
ων, no οfmt ogsae eeereed aures: σον οῦ.
πος Teg leery Kew!οἰνατασιν ων «ἰστω δῶ.
ΞΞΞ deol estou aylrAcro! savor" “4
“σοῦ 5 δρίεὐτῇ ς-τέω!
pala Ane λφυσεζας, Kose pay ewes, ἂν Aroma
@I~ow Gu-wesh@wy “πε Dov Ayadorns Lor - vals

«αὐ νγα wee @Loony Guru Tap Payoh cngQuerakcacyp.

carr OCE ty 7e Cv δε preg moans ἢ armor ““«1α'
ea ake“πος alo’ ore Ty, πο δωνεσχαύτες.- ones ‘ew
Tee cred Spordth Jno νία σαισυαπρων" ii οὐκ gp,’
owe Αὑποτος ῃ o- γ Gaines nov clrner Anis υου
σε τύ ἂν nal reneay- tees ore mary idea »
Cat seem yeuyco φον “TEES τας‘Ambar ces
TOS ATT “τοῖς πιρο ς RAs Pte! pors λυπρωσιννὲ ore
meee neural ςώταλασειν wag lanalaroy να χεογιῦ"
muice caer si(when peer ncaran aor “tro λαἣν οὐκοῦν,
ναΐαεςο,- τοὶδὲ τειν Δέον δὲ“Rane oncey'mpalaxuro: —
aur. witeor savor σφεας “πὐισεῖις ὁδ Σιων".
ταῦ το pavorte or Yroy 7s avres᾿“ωτος, 13 Paeovec.
Aha! aHaopls TOU eee - Hato Cre yulo rely
Tes Sane erage ἴων eure ves, Marea te “«ο,7ο τοῦ
: δος σας Κῶ wae Tedgesccy των [oct napa ey
TES VieSPE QAP νους Uae
ig yey oP uous 0°
Or Papou cathn’, nor oond ᾿τνωλωσνφ scofleZn pe.
«΄τοῦ, “wosedire ψύωςδιτωτον΄ὠνζίστωο-Αὐαεξν were,
ὡςθοὸν wieelp
ae «ἰδού -04 (<p) ro “αὐτοῦ «ἀνζοῖς
συΓαντιύσην ened τοῖς γνω ςοῦς- weep sele Gupoy Ta, com
τον ᾿ πώς ραν απ ἡ ειξουσαλέιε obyet (Ἴσαστεις αὐτὶ
ὁ“
“ἰών
το cetoh Malpas πεῖς » “δον “εὐζο w «τω,
ων ene
Γωρὼ “«ρῷὦὁ δοίκεεγον lv see, voor Se_oun
ou og [ox
caszren p> τας ται εὡζαῦν Taasrous! ahs
Twos an!ore
ey HTS καπο αρύστωσιν SO
ποῦ πιεενζας οὐ αἱ κου ονίως εεὐνοῦ- «καὶ ἡ Oo Teesexter
Reman στε, wo mee sabre Lntupeares Gj4 wer:
Tet ayontwre ζεσταςligγούτους- ἐδὸυ δ᾽μού ὀν δ,
Cre {Slave maior Yoloapne: 4jrete αενου τὸ
OW aT Tay: obey δηζο 0 0}
ζ ς τοῦ WRC ov
Wiaed yer <p mad αὐτου otha le ἐπκα. 6 ὡλαλδξο
 a Syeew irene! ν᾽ ν
μενο
‘ ς πἰπείσωπείσον,Δυνόττοῦ ΥΩ ᾿ς

2 Dp mov pat onr=pRSE

fase LI Ateegies aa ee NS
ney Spent seanἘξ vathov cou crepes
Arboptus μια © vqase,κιούSse τῶν
” aaa nas ey pia
“ὦ πολ να

Lume view ey madol Kure p «- μια.

Beh mated λῶν Ρον- Her] Caconsen46

7 ͵
, f Ὁ ee 4 Ὺ : °

ae ot Γνηθντευ ρα. ,

=εἴα αὐτῶν. ἡ δέττιν «ἀτῶν ἡςπσείλσι

See τς fy

δ... nddrmainAmroe- onal

ee πότ τ ττυ με
 ,
i νος
Ὁ
ποῦ ἐμ ΑΙΆΣΗΣ πα a ae
οὐδ Teta γον μας κα Awe anurbid,- O40 9}
ey eh Syva + Brigg ον ASU woe. ὃ gs
cA ene) Ve cto , sah, BY ἐξ στ μα tycd σαν: B ik :
᾿ Ἔ wae ose: Hard bid Ὁ ἊΝ τυ Bed, 1
ie
Laue et _tivledt LAY my ~e—
τ,Wπ
DAQUIR TE Biizpqp Pug.
᾿ be Or seh waaies akon hae ὩςWome bes ts
πον
oe
Broglie
Ho kab 4 ys j ~ “Se a yee ve Sagal QI BE-bdvw “ed
whe Vibe 5B. in pra omer a TS
; He
ἐν ᾿
e ntoo
at [ui
"ewi
gioi e
dl oe deme
n sab
δ τς. atougi
: τος
 <= 4
. ᾿
‘ 7 ,
1 t

᾿ ,
.
᾿

» mut

ῃ i
. Me
τ
Ν᾿ ᾿

+
᾿ =

δε:

Ω Ἂ : =
ἢ a Ὁ:

ες “4 . Η
- 2 ᾿

ι
= ' Se

Η ω ~ *

4 “ 7 Ν᾿ ᾿
5 - =
i [πὴ
᾿ = tg . Tae . > . *
5 ᾿
τιν
- 7 x, . r*
‘ y 4

é
͵ -
᾿ al
: ᾿ τὰ μα
᾿
“Π - Ὁ Ξ γ
Ψ' s
. a

\
a i bod +
= ὃ ᾿ ἂν >

5 ᾿" ᾿ ,
' . + : a“
.

᾿ -
᾿ Ἵ
< ~~
Ξέ - . 7 :
ewe
.
Ως Ὁ . ? - . - 4 4

baa a- x
‘ ᾿ Σ \ oo ©
. ; υ a
- Ν Β Ρ
ΕΝ a - ᾿ ᾿
᾿ i - 4
sp “w L ᾿ “
᾿ boy * s

4 ᾿ Ἷ \
ee ᾿ 4 δ ᾿ ὁ ᾿
5 Se. ἢ ᾿ :
» Ν +

,
- 7
“: A te uf ἡ .
’ ᾿ al
αν i 4

(ἃ ΝΕ δὰ 4 7 ' - ι
᾿ ᾿ Η . 7 ᾿ » ᾿ . i
od = Β ν 7 oe Β
.
.
4 ἜΣ ,
f= .

ay 7 ‘ ΕΣ aed +
a '
᾿ ᾿ ; .

,
~ τι ᾿
3 ts.
ν . = ,
if ᾿ ͵ ἶ ῃ
᾿ ᾿ ;
,ῃ
University of
ofToronto
To
rot
Library

DO NOT
REMOVE
THE
CARD
FROM
THIS
POCKET

Acme Library Card’Pocket

LOWE-MARTIN CO. LIMITED
 Ae
SE SN ‘as
σαν τοσοῦ 5 σα᾿ ne eran oe υρυνςεἰ
ὐνκὰκ νν οχτν
σον τatic td tmkkath
tinal
ee
Lael
ean fic)
af, :

Sie
ἊΝ
δα το
Nee

Race:
SAS
wwe Δ

aoe
ods

ponte
“τ:
Oar
Ss
0
τος
Ps
va
be