Chapter XVI: Preface: To Russell (1)

Though this _Boke of Nurture_ by John Russell is the most complete and elaborate of its kind, I have never seen it mentioned by name in any of the many books and essays on early manners and customs, food and dress, that have issued from the press. My own introduction to it was due to a chance turning over, for another purpose, of the leaves of the MS. containing it. Mr Wheatley then told me of Ritson’s reference to it in his _Bibliographica Poetica_, p. 96; and when the text was all printed, a reference in _The Glossary of Domestic Architecture_ (v. III. Pt. I. p. 76, note, col. 2) sent me to MS. Sloane 1315[1]--in the Glossary stated to have been written in 1452--which proved to be a different and unnamed version of Russell. Then the Sloane Catalogue disclosed a third MS., No. 2027[2], and the earliest of the three, differing rather less than No. 1315 from Russell’s text, but still anonymous. I have therefore to thank for knowledge of the MSS. that special Providence which watches over editors as well as children and drunkards, and have not on this occasion to express gratitude to Ritson and Warton, to whom every lover of Early English Manuscripts is under such deep obligations, and whose guiding hands (however faltering) in Poetry have made us long so often for the like in Prose. Would that one of our many Historians of English Literature had but conceived the idea of cataloguing the materials for his History before sitting down to write it! Would that a wise Government would commission another Hardy to do for English Literature what the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records is now doing for English History-- give us a list of the MSS. and early printed books of it! What time and trouble such a Catalogue would save!

But to return to John Russell and his Boke. He describes himself at the beginning and end of his treatise as Usher and Marshal to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, delighting in his work in youth, quitting it only when compelled by crooked age, and then anxious to train up worthy successors in the art and mystery of managing a well-appointed household. A man evidently who knew his work in every detail, and did it all with pride; not boastful, though upholding his office against rebellious cooks[3], putting them down with imperial dignity, “we may allow and disallow; our office is the chief!” A simple-minded religious man too,--as the close of his Treatise shows,--and one able to appreciate the master he served, the “prynce fulle royalle,” the learned and munificent Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, the patron of Lydgate, Occleve, Capgrave, Withamstede, Leonard Aretine, Petrus Candidus, Petrus de Monte, Tito Livio, Antoyne de Beccara, &c. &c., the lover of Manuscripts, the first great donor to the Oxford University Library which Bodley revived[4], “that prince peerless,” as Russell calls him, a man who, with all his faults, loved books and authors, and shall be respected by us as he was by Lydgate. But our business is with the Marshal, not the Master, and we will hear what John Russell says of himself in his own verse,

an vssher{e} y Am / ye may behold{e} /
to a prynce of high{e} degre,
þat enioyeth{e} to enforme & teche /
all{e} þo thatt wille thrive & thee,

Of suche thyng{es} as her{e}-aft{ur}
shall{e} be shewed by my diligence
To them þat nought Can / w{i}t{h}-owt gret exsperience;
Therfor{e} yf any mañ þ{a}t y mete with{e},
þat for fawt of necligence,
y wyll{e} hym enforme & teche, for hurtyng{e} of my Conscience.

To teche vertew and co{n}nyng{e}, me thynketh hit charitable,
for moche youth{e} in co{n}nyng{e} / is bareñ & full{e} vnable.

(l. 3-9.)

At the end of his Boke he gives us a few more details about himself and his work in life:

Now good soñ, y haue shewed the / & brought þe in vre,
to know þe Curtesie of court / & these þow may take in cur{e},
In pantry / botery / or celler{e} /
& in kervyng{e} a-for{e} a sovereyn{e} demewr{e},
A sewer / or a m{er}shall{e}: in þes science /
y suppose ye byñ sewr{e},

Which in my dayes y lernyd with{e} a prynce full{e} royall{e},
with whom̅ vscher{e} in chambur was y, & m{er}shalle also in hall{e},
vnto whom̅ all{e} þese officer{es} for{e}seid /
þey eu{er} ente{n}de shall{e},
Evir to fulfill{e} my co{m}maundement wheñ þat y to þem call{e}:

For we may allow & dissalow / our{e} office is þe cheeff
In celler{e} & spicery / & the Cooke, be he looth{e} or leeff.

(l. 1173-82.)

Further on, at line 1211, he says,

“Moor{e} of þis co{n}nyng{e} y Cast not me to contreve:
my tyme is not to tary, hit drawest fast to eve.
þis tretyse þat y haue entitled, if it ye entende to p{re}ve,
y assayed me self in youth{e} w{i}t{h}-outeñ any greve.

while y was yong{e} y-nough{e} & lusty in dede,
y enioyed þese maters foreseid / & to lerne y toke good hede;
but croked age hath{e} co{m}pelled me / & leue court y must nede.
þerfor{e}, son{e}, assay thy self / & god shall{e} be þy spede.”

And again, at line 1227,

“Now, good soñ, thy self, w{i}t{h} other þ{a}t shall{e} þe succede,
which{e} þus boke of nurtur{e} shall{e} note / lerne, & ou{er} rede,
pray for the sowle of Iohñ Russell{e}, þat god do hym mede,
Som tyme s{er}uaunde w{i}t{h} duke vmfrey,
duc[A] of Glowcet{ur} in dede.

For þat prynce pereles prayeth{e} / & for suche other mo,
þe sowle of my wife / my fadur and modir also,
vn-to Mary modyr and mayd / she fende us from owr{e} foe,
and bryng{e} vs all{e} to blis wheñ we shall{e} hens goo. =AMEN=.”

[Text Note:
The _duc_ has a red stroke through it, probably to cut it out.]

As to his Boke, besides what is quoted above, John Russell says,

Go forth{e} lytell{e} boke, and lowly þow me co{m}mende
vnto all{e} yong{e} gentilmeñ / þ{a}t lust to lerne or entende,
and specially to þem þat han exsperience,
p{ra}yng{e} þe[m] to amend{e}
and correcte þat is amysse, þer{e} as y fawte or offende.

And if so þat any be founde / as þrouȝ myñ necligence,
Cast þe cawse oñ my copy / rude / & bar{e} of eloquence,
which{e} to d{ra}we out [I] haue do my besy diligence,
redily to reforme hit / by resoñ and bettur sentence.

As for ryme or resoñ, þe for{e}wryter was not to blame,
For as he founde hit aforne hym̅, so wrote he þe same,
and þaugh{e} he or y in our{e} mater{e} digres or degrade,
blame neithur of vs / For we neuyr{e} hit made;

Symple as y had insight / somwhat þe ryme y correcte;
blame y cowde no mañ / y haue no persone suspecte.
Now, good god, graunt vs grace / our{e} sowles neu{er} to Infecte!
þañ may we regne in þi regiou{n} / et{er}nally w{i}t{h} thyne electe.

(l. 1235-50.)

If John Russell was the writer of the Epilogue quoted above, lines 1235-50, then it would seem that in this Treatise he only corrected and touched up some earlier Book of Norture which he had used in his youth, and which, if Sloane 2027 be not its original, may be still extant in its primal state in Mr Arthur Davenport’s MS., “How to serve a Lord,” _said_ to be of the fourteenth century[6], and now supposed to be stowed away in a hayloft with the owner’s other books, awaiting the rebuilding and fitting of a fired house. I only hope this MS. may prove to be Russell’s original, as Mr Davenport has most kindly promised to let me copy and print it for the Society. Meantime it is possible to consider John Russell’s Book of Norture as his own. For early poets and writers of verse seem to have liked this fiction of attributing their books to other people, and it is seldom that you find them acknowledging that they have imagined their Poems on their own heads, as Hampole has it in his _Pricke of Conscience_, p. 239, l. 8874 (ed. Morris, Philol. Soc.). Even Mr Tennyson makes believe that Everard Hall wrote his _Morte d’ Arthur_, and some Leonard his _Golden Year_. On the other hand, the existence of the two Sloane MSS. is more consistent with Russell’s own statement (if it is his own, and not his adapter’s in the Harleian MS.) that he did not write his Boke himself, but only touched up another man’s. Desiring to let every reader judge for himself on this point, I shall try to print in a separate text[7], for convenience of comparison, the Sloane MS. 1315, which differs most from Russell, and which the Keeper of the MSS. at the British Museum considers rather earlier (ab. 1440-50 A.D.) than the MS. of Russell (ab. 1460-70 A.D.), while of the earliest of the three, Sloane MS. 2027 (ab. 1430-40 A.D.), the nearer to Russell in phraseology, I shall give a collation of all important variations. If any reader of the present text compares the Sloanes with it, he will find the subject matter of all three alike, except in these particulars:

Sloane 1315.
--Sloane 2027.

Omits lines 1-4 of Russell.
--Contains these lines.

Inserts after l. 48 of R. a passage about behaviour which it nearly
repeats, where Russell puts it, at l. 276, _Symple Condicions_.
--Inserts and omits as Sl. 1315 does, but the wording is often
different.

Omits Russell’s stanza, l. 305-8, about ‘these cuttid galauntes with
their codware.’

Omits a stanza, l. 319-24, p. 21.2, b.).
--Contains this stanza (fol. 42, b.).

Contracts R.’s chapter on Fumositees, p. 23-4.
--Contracts the Fumositees too (fol. 45 and back).

Omits R.’s _Lenvoy_, under Fried Metes, p. 33-4.
--Has one verse of _Lenvoy_ altered (fol. 45 b.).

Transfers R.’s chapters on _Sewes on Fische Dayes_ and _Sawcis for
Fishe_, l. 819-54, p. 55-9, to the end of his chapter on _Kervyng of
Fishe_, l. 649, p. 45.
--Transfers as Sl. 1315 does (see fol. 48).

Gives different Soteltes (or Devices at the end of each course), and
omits Russell’s description of his four of the Four Seasons, p. 51-4;
and does not alter the metre of the lines describing the Dinners as
he does, p. 50-5.
--Differs from R., nearly as Sl. 1315 does.

Winds up at the end of the _Bathe or Stewe_, l. 1000, p. 69, R.,
with two stanzas of peroration. As there is no _Explicit_, the MS.
may be incomplete, but the next page is blank.
--Has 3 winding-up stanzas, as if about to end as Sloane 1315 does,
but yet goes on (omitting the _Bathe Medicinable_) with the
_Vssher and Marshalle_, R. p. 69, and ends suddenly, at l. 1062,
p. 72, R., in the middle of the chapter.

In occasional length of line, in words and rhymes, Sloane 1315 differs far more from Russell than Sloane 2027, which has Russell’s long lines and rhymes throughout, so far as a hurried examination shows.

But the variations of both these Sloane MSS. are to me more like those from an original MS. of which our Harleian Russell is a copy, than of an original which Russell altered. Why should the earliest Sloane 2027 start with

“An vsschere .y. am / as ye may se : to a prynce Of hygh{e} degre”

if in its original the name of the prince was not stated at the end, as Russell states it, to show that he was not gammoning his readers? Why does Sloane 1315 omit lines in some of its stanzas, and words in some of its lines, that the Harleian Russell enables us to fill up? Why does it too make its writer refer to the pupil’s lord and sovereign, if in its original the author did not clench his teaching by asserting, as Russell does, that he had served one? This Sloane 1315 may well have been copied by a man like Wynkyn de Worde, who wished not to show the real writer of the treatise. On the whole, I incline to believe that John Russell’s Book of Norture was written by him, and that either the Epilogue to it was a fiction of his, or was written by the superintender of the particular copy in the Harleian MS. 4011, Russell’s own work terminating with the _Amen!_ after line 1234.

But whether we consider Russell’s Boke another’s, or as in the main his own,--allowing that in parts he may have used previous pieces on the subjects he treats of, as he has used _Stans Puer_ (or its original) in his _Symple Condicions_, l. 277-304,--if we ask what the Boke contains, the answer is, that it is a complete Manual for the Valet, Butler, Footman, Carver, Taster, Dinner-arranger, Hippocras-maker, Usher and Marshal of the Nobleman of the time when the work was written, the middle of the fifteenth century.--For I take the date of the composition of the work to be somewhat earlier than that of the MS. it is here printed from, and suppose Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, “imprisoned and murdered 1447,” to have been still alive when his Marshal penned it.--Reading it, we see “The Good Duke” rise and dress[8], go to Chapel and meals, entertain at feasts in Hall, then undress and retire to rest; we hear how his head was combed with an ivory comb, his stomacher warmed, his petycote put on, his slippers brown as the waterleech got ready, his privy-seat prepared, and his urinal kept in waiting; how his bath was made, his table laid, his guests arranged, his viands carved, and his salt smoothed[9]; we are told how nearly all the birds that fly, the animals that walk the earth, the fish that swim in river and sea, are food for the pot: we hear of dishes strange to us[10], beaver’s tail, osprey, brewe, venprides, whale, swordfish, seal, torrentyne, pety perveis or perneis, and gravell of beef[11]. Bills of fare for flesh and fish days are laid before us; admired Sotiltees or Devices are described; and he who cares to do so may fancy for himself the Duke and all his brilliant circle feasting in Hall, John Russell looking on, and taking care that all goes right.[12] I am not going to try my hand at the sketch, as I do not write for men in the depths of that deducated Philistinism which lately made a literary man say to one of our members on his printing a book of the 15th century, “Is it possible that you care how those barbarians, our ancestors, lived?” If any one who takes up this tract, will not read it through, the loss is his; those who do work at it will gladly acknowledge their gain. That it is worthy of the attention of all to whose ears tidings of Early England come with welcome sound across the wide water of four hundred years, I unhesitatingly assert. That it has interested me, let the time its notes have taken on this, a fresh subject to me, testify. If any should object to the extent of them[13], or to any words in them that may offend his ear, let him excuse them for the sake of what he thinks rightly present. There are still many subjects and words insufficiently illustrated in the comments, and for the names _venprides_ (l. 820); _sprotis_, (? sprats, as in Sloane 1315), and _torrentille_ (l. 548); almond _iardyne_ (l. 744); ginger _colombyne_, _valadyne_, and _maydelyne_ (l. 132-3); leche _dugard_, &c., I have not been able to find meanings. Explanations and helps I shall gladly receive, in the hope that they may appear in another volume of like kind for which I trust soon to find more MSS. Of other MSS. of like kind I also ask for notice.

The reason for reprinting Wynkyn de Worde’s _Boke of Keruynge_, which I had not at first thought of, was because its identity of phrase and word with many parts of Russell,--a thing which came on me with a curious feeling of surprise as I turned over the leaves,--made it certain that de Worde either abstracted in prose Russell’s MS., chopping off his lines’ tails,--adding also bits here[14], leaving out others there,--or else that both writers copied a common original. The most cursory perusal will show this to be the case. It was not alone by happy chance that when Russell had said

O Fruture viant / Fruter sawge byñ good /
bett{ur} is Frut{ur} powche;
Appulle fruture / is good hoot / but þe cold ye not towche

(l. 501-2)

Wynkyn de Worde delivered himself of

“Fruyter vaunte, fruyter say be good; better is fruyter pouche;
apple fruyters ben good good hote / and all colde fruters, touche
not,”

altering _not’s_ place to save the rhyme; or that when Russell had said of the Crane

The Crane is a fowle / that strong{e} is w{i}t{h} to far{e};
þe whyng{es} ye areyse / full{e} large evyñ thar{e};
of hyr{e} trompe in þe brest / loke þ{a}t ye beware

Wynkyn de Worde directed his Carver thus: “A crane, reyse the wynges fyrst, & beware of the trumpe in his brest.” Let any one compare the second and third pages of Wynkyn de Worde’s text with lines 48-137 of Russell, and he will make up his mind that the old printer was either one of the most barefaced plagiarists that ever lived, or that the same original was before him and Russell too. May Mr Davenport’s hayloft, or some learned antiquarian, soon decide the alternative for us! The question was too interesting a “Curiosity of Literature” not to be laid before our Members, and therefore _The Boke of Keruynge_ was reprinted--from the British Museum copy of the second edition of 1513--with added side-notes and stops, and the colophon as part of the title.

Then came the necessary comparison of Russell’s Boke with the _Boke of Curtasye_, edited by Mr Halliwell from the Sloane MS. 1986 for the Percy Society. Contrasts had to be made with it, in parts, many times in a page; the tract was out of print and probably in few Members’ hands; it needed a few corrections[15], and was worthy of a thousand times wider circulation than it had had; therefore a new edition from the MS. was added to this volume. Relying on Members reading it for themselves, I have not in the notes indicated all the points of coincidence and difference between this Boke and Russell’s. It is of wider scope than Russell’s, takes in the duties of outdoor officers and servants as well as indoor, and maybe those of a larger household; it has also a _fyrst Boke_ on general manners, and a _Second Book_ on what to learn at school, how to behave at church, &c., but it does not go into the great detail as to Meals and Dress which is the special value of Russell’s Boke, nor is it associated with a writer who tells us something of himself, or a noble who in all our English Middle Age has so bright a name on which we can look back as “good Duke Humphrey.” This personality adds an interest to work that anonymity and its writings of equal value can never have; so that we may be well content to let the _Curtasye_ be used in illustration of the _Nurture_. The MS. of the _Curtasye_ is about 1460 A.D., Mr Bond says. I have dated it wrongly on the half-title.

_The Booke of Demeanor_ was “such a little one” that I was tempted to add it to mark the general introduction of handkerchiefs. Having printed it, arose the question, ‘Where did it come from?’ No Weste’s _Schoole of Vertue_ could I find in catalogues, or by inquiring of the Duke of Devonshire, Mr W. C. Hazlitt, at the Bodleian, &c. Seager’s _Schoole of Vertue_ was the only book that turned up, and this I accordingly reprinted, as Weste’s Booke of Demeanor seemed to be little more than an abstract of the first four Chapters of Seager cut down and rewritten. We must remember that books of this kind, which we look on as sources of amusement, as more or less of a joke, were taken seriously by the people they were written for. That _The Schoole of Vertue_, for instance--whether Seager’s or Weste’s--was used as a regular school-book for boys, let Io. Brinsley witness. In his _Grammar Schoole_ of 1612, pp. 17, 18, he enumerates the “Bookes to bee first learned of children”:-- 1. their Abcie, and Primer. 2. The Psalms in metre, ‘because children wil learne that booke with most readinesse and delight through the running of the metre, as it is found by experience. 3. Then the Testament.’ 4. “If any require any other little booke meet to enter children; _the Schoole of Vertue_ is one of the principall, and easiest for the first enterers, being full of precepts of ciuilitie, and such as children will soone learne and take a delight in, thorow the roundnesse of the metre, as was sayde before of the singing Psalmes: And after it _the Schoole of good manners_[16], called, _the new Schoole of Vertue_, leading the childe as by the hand, in the way of all good manners.”

I make no apology for including reprints of these little-known books in an Early English Text. _Qui s’excuse s’accuse_; and if these Tracts do not justify to any reader their own appearance here, I believe the fault is not theirs.

A poem on minding what you say, which Mr Aldis Wright has kindly sent me, some Maxims on Behaviour, &c., which all end in _-ly_, and Roger Ascham’s Advice to his brother-in-law on entering a nobleman’s service, follow, and then the Poems which suggested the _Forewords_ on Education in Early England, and have been partly noticed in them, p. i-iv. I have only to say of the first, _The Babees Boke_, that I have not had time to search for its Latin original, or other copies of the text. Its specialty is its attributing so high birth to the Bele Babees whom it addresses, and its appeal to Lady Facetia to help its writer. Of the short alphabetic poems that follow,--_The A B C of Aristotle_,--copies occur elsewhere; and that in the Harleian Manuscript 1304, which has a different introduction, I hope to print in the companion volume to this, already alluded to. _Vrbanitatis_, I was glad to find, because of the mention of _the booke of urbanitie_ in Edward the Fourth’s Liber Niger (p. ii. above), as we thus know what the Duke of Norfolk of “Flodden Field” was taught in his youth as to his demeanings, how mannerly he should eat and drink, and as to his communication and other forms of court. He was not to spit or snite before his Lord the King, or wipe his nose on the table-cloth. The next tracts, _The Lytylle Chyldrenes Lytil Boke or Edyllys Be_[17] (a title made up from the text) and _The Young Children’s Book_, are differing versions of one set of maxims, and are printed opposite one another for contrast sake. _The Lytil Boke_ was printed from a later text, and with an interlinear French version, by Wynkyn de Worde in ‘_Here begynneth a lytell treatyse for to lerne Englisshe and Frensshe_.’ This will be printed by Mr Wheatley in his Collection of Early Treatises on Grammar for the Society, as the copy in the Grenville Library in the Brit. Mus. is the only one known. Other copies of this Lytil Boke are at Edinburgh, Cambridge, and Oxford. Of two of these Mr David Laing and Mr Henry Bradshaw have kindly given me collations, which are printed at the end of this Preface. Of the last Poem, _Stans Puer ad Mensam_, attributed to Lydgate-- as nearly everything in the first half of the 15th century was-- I have printed two copies, with collations from a third, the Jesus (Cambridge) MS. printed by Mr Halliwell in _Reliquiæ Antiquæ_, v. 1, p. 156-8, and reprinted by Mr W. C. Hazlitt in his _Early Popular Poetry_, ii. 23-8. Mr Hazlitt notices 3 other copies, in Harl. MS. 4011, fol. 1, &c.; Lansdowne MS. 699; and Additional MS. 5467, which he collated for his text. There must be plenty more about the country, as in Ashmole MS. 61, fol. 16, back, in the Bodleian.[18] Of old printed editions Mr Hazlitt notes one “from the press of Caxton, but the only copy known is imperfect. It was printed two or three times by Wynkyn de Worde. Lowndes mentions two, 1518, 4to, and 1524, 4to; and in the public library at Cambridge there is said by Hartshorne (_Book Rarities_, 156) to be a third without date. It is also appended to the various impressions of the _Boke of Nurture_ by Hugh Rhodes.” This _Boke_ has been reprinted for the Early English Text Society, and its _Stans Puer_ is Rhodes’s own expansion of one of the shorter English versions of the original Latin[19].

The woodcuts Messrs Virtue have allowed me to have copies of for a small royalty, and they will help the reader to realize parts of the text better than any verbal description. The cuts are not of course equal to the beautiful early illuminations they are taken from, but they are near enough for the present purpose. The dates of those from British Museum MSS. are given on the authority of trustworthy officers of the Manuscript Department. The dates of the non-Museum MSS. are copied from Mr Wright’s text. The line of description under the cuts is also from Mr Wright’s text, except in one instance where he had missed the fact of the cut representing the Marriage Feast at Cana of Galilee, with its six water-pots.

The MS. of Russell is on thick folio paper, is written in a close--and seemingly unprofessional--hand, fond of making elaborate capitals to the initials of its titles, and thus occasionally squeezing up into a corner the chief word of the title, because the _T_ of _The_ preceding has required so much room.[20] The MS. has been read through by a corrector with a red pen, pencil, or brush, who has underlined all the important words, touched up the capitals, and evidently believed in the text. Perhaps the corrector, if not writer, was Russell himself. I hope it was, for the old man must have enjoyed emphasizing his precepts with those red scores; but then he would hardly have allowed a space to remain blank in line 204, and have left his Panter-pupil in doubt as to whether he should lay his “white payne” on the left or right of his knives. Every butler, drill-serjeant, and vestment-cleric, must feel the thing to be impossible. The corrector was not John Russell.

To all those gentlemen who have helped me in the explanations of words, &c.,--Mr Gillett, Dr Günther, Mr Atkinson, Mr Skeat, Mr Cockayne, Mr Gibbs, Mr Way, the Hon. G. P. Marsh--and to Mr E. Brock, the most careful copier of the MS., my best thanks are due, and are hereby tendered. Would that thanks of any of us now profiting by their labours could reach the ears of that prince of Dictionary-makers, Cotgrave, of Frater Galfridus, Palsgrave, Hexham, Philipps, and the rest of the lexicographers who enable us to understand the records of the past! Would too that an adequate expression of gratitude could reach the ears of the lost Nicolas, and of Sir Frederic Madden, for their carefully indexed Household Books,--to be contrasted with the unwieldy mass and clueless mazes of the Antiquaries’ _Household Ordinances_, the two volumes of the Roxburghe _Howard Household Books_, and Percy’s _Northumberland Household Book[21]!_--They will be spared the pains of the special place of torment reserved for editors who turn out their books without glossary or index. May that be their sufficient reward!

3, _St George’s Square_, N.W.

16 _Dec._, 1866.

HUMPHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER.

Mr C. H. Pearson has referred me to a most curious treatise on the state of Duke Humphrey’s body and health in 1404 (that is, 1424, says Hearne), by Dr Gilbert Kymer, his physician, part of which (chapters 3 and 19, with other pieces) was printed by Hearne in the appendix to his _Liber Niger_, v. ii. p. 550 (_ed. alt._), from a MS. then in Sir Hans Sloane’s Collection, and now _Sloane_ 4 in the British Museum. It begins at p. 127 or folio 63, and by way of giving the reader a notion of its contents, I add here a copy of the first page of the MS.

Incipit dietariu{m} de sanitatis custodia p{re}inclitissi{m}o
p{r}incipi ac metuendissimo d{omi}no, d{omi}no humfrido, duci
Gloucestrie, Alijsq{ue} p{re}claris titulis insignito,
Sc{r}iptu{m} & co{m}pilatu{m}, p{er} ven{er}abile{m} doctore{m},
Magistru{m} Gilbertum Kymer, Medicinar{um} p{ro}fessorem, arciu{m}
ac ph{ilosoph}ie Mag{ist}r{u}m & in legib{us} bacallariu{m}
p{re}libati p{r}incipis phisicu{m}, Cui{us} dietarij[A]
c{ol}l{e}cc{i}o{n}em (?) dilucidancia & effectu{m} viginti sex
existu{n}t capit{u}la, q{u}or{um} {con}seque{n}t{er} hic ordo
ponit{ur} Rubricar{um}[B].

[Textnotes:
A: The letters are to me more like cł, or c{ol}l than anything
else, but I am not sure what they are. B: The MS. runs on
without breaks.
[Transcriber’s Note: Marker [A] is printed at the end of
“dietarij”, but must be intended for the following word.]]

Cap{itulu}m 1^m est ep{isto}la de laude sanitat{is}
& vtilitate bone diete.
Cap{itulu}m 2^m est de illis in quib{us} consistit dieta.
Cap{itulu}m 3^m de toci{us} co[r]p{or}is & p{ar}ciu{m} disposi{ci}one.
Cap{itulu}m 4^m est de Ayer{e} eligendo & corrigendo.
Cap{itulu}m 5^m de q{ua}ntitate cibi & potus sumenda.
Cap{itulu}m 6^m de ordine sumendi cibu{m} & potu{m}.
Cap{itulu}m 7^m de temp{or}e sumendi cibu{m} & potu{m}.
Cap{itulu}m 8^m de q{ua}ntitate cibi & potus sumendoru{m}.
Cap{itulu}m 9^m de pane eligendo.
Cap{itulu}m 10^m de gen{er}ib{us} potagior{um} sumendis.
Cap{itulu}m 11^m de carnib{us} vtendis & vitandis.
Cap{itulu}m 12^m de ouis sumendis.
Cap{itulu}m 13^m de lacticinijs vtend{is}.
Cap{itulu}m 14^m de piscib{us} vtendis & vitand{is}.
Cap{itulu}m 15^m de fructib{us} sumendis.
Cap{itulu}m 16^m de co{n}dime{n}t{is} & sp{eci}ebus vtendis.
Cap{itulu}m 17^m de potu eligendo.
Cap{itulu}m 18^m de regimi{n}e replec{i}o{n}is & inanic{i}onis.
Cap{itulu}m 19^m de vsu coitus.
Cap{itulu}m 20^m de excercic{io} & q{u}iete.
Cap{itulu}m 21^m de sompni & vigilie regimi{n}e.
Cap{itulu}m 22^m de vsu acc{ide}nciu{m} anime.
Cap{itulu}m 23^m de bona {con}suetudi{n}e diete tenenda.
Cap{itulu}m 24^m de medic{in}is vicissim vtendis.
Cap{itulu}m 25^m de adu{er}sis nature infortunijs p{re}cauendis.
Cap{itulu}m 26^m de deo semp{er} colendo vt sanitate{m} melius
tueatur.

[“Unpacked” text, omitting signs of abbreviations or ligatures:]

Incipit dietarium de sanitatis custodia preinclitissimo principi
ac metuendissimo domino, domino humfrido, duci Gloucestrie,
Alijsque preclaris titulis insignito, Scriptum & compilatum, per
venerabilem doctorem, Magistrum Gilbertum Kymer, Medicinarum
professorem, arcium ac philosophie Magistrum & in legibus
bacallarium prelibati principis phisicum, Cuius dietarij
colleccionem (?) dilucidancia & effectum viginti sex existunt
capitula, quorum consequenter hic ordo ponitur Rubricarum.

Sharon Turner (_Hist. of England_, v. 498, note 35) says euphemistically of the part of this treatise printed by Hearne, that “it implies how much the Duke had injured himself by the want of self-government. It describes him in his 45th year, as having a rheumatic affection in his chest, with a daily morning cough. It mentions that his nerves had become debilitated by the vehemence of his laborious exercises, and from an immoderate frequency of pleasurable indulgences. It advises him to avoid north winds after a warm sun, sleep after dinner, exercise after society, frequent bathings, strong wine, much fruit, the flesh of swine, and the weakening gratification to which he was addicted. The last (chapter), ‘De Deo semper colendo, ut sanitatem melius tueatur,’ is worthy the recollection of us all.” It is too late to print the MS. in the present volume, but in a future one it certainly ought to appear.

Of Duke Humphrey’s character and proceedings after the Pope’s bull had declared his first marriage void, Sharon Turner further says:

“Gloucester had found the rich dowry of Jacqueline wrenched from his grasp, and, from so much opposition, placed beyond his attaining, and he had become satiated with her person. One of her attendants, Eleanor Cobham, had affected his variable fancy; and tho’ her character had not been spotless before, and she had surrendered her honour to his own importunities, yet he suddenly married her, exciting again the wonder of the world by his conduct, as in that proud day every nobleman felt that he was acting incongruously with the blood he had sprung from. His first wedlock was impolitic, and this unpopular; and both were hasty and self-willed, and destructive of all reputation for that dignified prudence, which his elevation to the regency of the most reflective and enlightened nation in Europe demanded for its example and its welfare. This injudicious conduct announced too much imperfection of intellect, not to give every advantage to his political rival the bishop of Winchester, his uncle, who was now struggling for the command of the royal mind, and for the predominance in the English government. He and the duke of Exeter were the illegitimate brothers of Henry the Fourth, and had been first intrusted with the king’s education. The internal state of the country, as to its religious feelings and interest, contributed to increase the differences which now arose between the prelate and his nephew, who is described by a contemporary as sullying his cultivated understanding and good qualities, by an ungoverned and diseasing love of unbecoming pleasures. It is strange, that in so old a world of the same continuing system always repeating the same lesson, any one should be ignorant that the dissolute vices are the destroyers of personal health, comfort, character, and permanent influence.”[24]

After narrating Duke Humphrey’s death, Turner thus sums up his character:--

“The duke of Gloucester, amid failings that have been before alluded to, has acquired the pleasing epithet of The Good; and has been extolled for his promotion of the learned or deserving clergy. Fond of literature, and of literary conversation, he patronized men of talent and erudition. One is called, in a public record, his poet and orator; and Lydgate prefaces one of his voluminous works, with a panegyric upon him, written during the king’s absence on his French coronation, which presents to us the qualities for which, while he was living, the poet found him remarkable, and thought fit to commend him.”

These verses are in the Royal MS. 18 D 4, in the British Museum, and are here printed from the MS., not from Turner:--

[Fol. 4.]
Eek in this lond--I dar afferme a thyng--
Ther is a prince Ful myhty of puyssau{n}ce,
A kynges sone, vncle to the kynge
Henry the sexte which is now i{n} frau{n}ce,
And is lieftenant, & hath the gouernau{n}ce
Off our breteyne; thoruh was discrecion
He hath conserued in this regiou{n}

Duryng his tyme off ful hih{e}[A] prudence
Pes and quiete, and sustened riht{e}.[A]
Ȝit natwithstandyng his noble prouyde{n}ce
He is in deede prouyd a good knyht,
Eied as argus with reson and forsiht;
Off hih{e} lectrure I dar eek off hym telle,
And treuli deeme that he doth{e} excelle

In vndirstondyng all othir of his age,
And hath gret Ioie with clerkis to co{m}mune;
And no man is mor expert off language.
Stable in studie alwei he doth contune,
Settyng a side alle chau{n}ges[B] of fortune;
And wher he loueth{e}, ȝiff I schal nat tarie,
With{e}oute cause ful loth{e} he is to varie.

Duc off Gloucestre men this prince calle;
And natwithstandyng his staat & dignyte,
His corage neuer doth appalle
To studie in bookis off antiquite;
Therin he hath{e} so gret felicite
Vertuousli hym silff to ocupie,
Off vicious slouth to haue the maistrie.[25]

And with his prudence & wit his manheed
Trouthe to susteyne he fauour set a side;
And hooli chirche meyntenyng in dede,
That in this land no lollard dar abide.
As verrai support, vpholdere, & eek guyde,
Spareth non, but maketh{e} hym silff strong
To punysshe alle tho that do the chirch{e} wrong.

Thus is he both manly & eek wise,
Chose of god to be his owne knyht{e};
And off o thynge he hath a synguler[C] price,
That heretik dar non comen in his siht{e}.
In cristes feith{e} he stant so hol vpriht,
Off hooli chirche defence and [c]hampion
To chastise alle that do therto treson.

And to do plesance to oure lord ih{es}u
He studieht[D] eu{er}e to haue intelligence.
Reedinge off bookis bringth{e} in vertu,--
Vices excludyng, slouthe & necligence,--
Maketh{e} a prince to haue experience
To know hym silff i{n} many sundry wise,
Wher he trespaseth, his errour to chastise.

[Text Notes:
A: These _e_-s represent the strokes through the _h_-s.
B: MS. thau{n}ges.
C: The _l_ is rubbed.
D: So in MS.]

After mentioning that the duke had considered the book of ‘Boccasio, on the Fall of Princes,’ he adds, ‘and he gave me commandment, that I should, after my conning, this book translate him to do plesance.’ MS. 18 D 4.--Sharon Turner’s _History of England_, vol. vi. pp. 55--7.

P.S. When printing the 1513 edition of Wynkyn de Worde’s _Boke of Keruynge_, I was not aware of the existence of a copy of the earlier edition in the Cambridge University Library. Seeing this copy afterwards named in Mr Hazlitt’s new catalogue, I asked a friend to compare the present reprint with the first edition, and the result follows.

NOTE ON THE 1508 EDITION OF

_The Boke of Keruynge_,

By The Rev. Walter Skeat, M.A.

The title-page of the older edition, of 1508, merely contains the words, “¶ Here begynneth the boke of Keruynge;” and beneath them is--as in the second edition of 1513--a picture of two ladies and two gentlemen at dinner, with an attendant bringing a dish, two servants at a side table, and a jester. The colophon tells us that it was “Enprynted by wynkyn de worde at London in Flete strete at the sygne of the sonne. The yere of our lorde M.CCCCC.VIII;” beneath which is Wynkyn de Worde’s device, as in the second edition.

The two editions resemble each other very closely, running page for page throughout, and every folio in the one begins at the same place as in the other. Thus the word “moche” is divided into mo-che in both editions, the “-che” beginning Fol. A. ii. b. Neither is altogether free from misprints, but these are not very numerous nor of much importance. It may be observed that marks of contraction are hardly ever used in the older edition, the word “y^e” being written “the” at length, and instead of “hãged” we find “hanged.” On the whole, the first edition would seem to be the more carefully printed, but the nature of the variations between them will be best understood by an exact collation of the first two folios (pp. 151-3 of the present edition), where the readings of the first edition are denoted by the letter A. The only variations are these:--

P. 151.
_lyft_ that swanne] _lyfte_ that swanne A (_a misprint_).
_frusshe_ that chekyn] _fruche_ that chekyn A.
thye all maner _of_ small byrdes] A _omits_ of.
_fynne_ that cheuen] _fyne_ that cheuen A.
_transsene_ that ele] _trassene_ that ele A.
Here _hendeth_, &c.] Here _endeth_, &c. A.
_Butler_] Butteler A.

P. 152,
l. 5. _tre{n}choures_] trenchours A.
l. 12. _ha{n}ged_] hanged A.
l. 15. _cannelles_] canelles A.
l. 18, 19. _y^e_] the (_in both places_) A.
l. 20. _seasous_] seasons A.
l. 23. _after_] After A.
l. 27. _good_] goot A.
l. 30. _y^e_] the A.
l. 34. _modo{n}_] modon A.
l. 36. _sourayne_] souerayne A.

P. 153. _ye_] the A (_several times_).
l. 5. _wyll_] wyl A.
l. 9. _rede_] reed A. _reboyle_] reboyle not A.
l. 12. _the_ reboyle] _they_ reboyle A.
l. 17. _lessynge_] lesynge A.
l. 20. _ca{m}polet_] campolet A.
l. 21. _tyer_] tyerre A.
l. 22. _ypocras_] Ipocras A (_and in the next line, and l. 26_).
l. 24. _gy{n}ger_] gynger A.
l. 27. _ren_] hange A.
l. 29. _your_] youre A.
_In l._ 33, A _has_ paradico, _as in the second edition._

It will be readily seen that these variations are chiefly in the spelling, and of a trivial character. The only ones of any importance are, on p. 151, _lyste_ (which is a misprint) for _lyft_, and _trassene_ for _transsene_ (cp. Fr. _transon_, a truncheon, peece of, Cot.); on p. 152, _goot_ for _good_ is well worth notice (if any meaning can be assigned to _goot_), as the direction to beware of _good_ strawberries is not obvious; on p. 153, we should note _lesynge_ for _lessynge_, and _hange_ for _ren_, the latter being an improvement, though _ren_ makes sense, as basins hung by cords on a perch may, like curtains hung on a rod, be said to _run_ on it. The word _ren_ was probably caught up from the line above it in reprinting.

The following corrections are also worth making, and are made on the authority of the first edition:--

P. 155,
l. 10, _For_ treachour _read_ trenchour.
l. 23. _For_ so _read_ se.
l. 24. _For_ se’ _read_ se.
P. 156,
l. 1. _ony_] on A.
l. 7. _For_ it _read_ is.
l. 15. _y^e so_] and soo A.
(_No doubt owing to confusion between & and_ y^e.)
l. 16. _your_] you A.
l. 29. _For_ bo _read_ be.
P. 157,
l. 20. _For_ wich _read_ with.
P. 158,
l. 3. _For_ fumosytces _read_ fumosytees.
l. 7. _For_ pygous _read_ pynyons (whence it appears that
the _pinion_-bones, not _pigeon’s_-bones, are meant).
l. 25. The word “reyfe” is quite plain.

P. 160, ll. 18, &c. There is some variation here; the first edition has, after the word _souerayne_, the following:--“laye trenchours before hym / yf he be a grete estate, lay fyue trenchours / & he be of a lower degre, foure trenchours / & of an other degre, thre trenchours,” &c. This is better; the second edition is clearly wrong about _five_ trenchers. This seems another error made in reprinting, the words _lower degre_ being wrongly repeated.

P. 161,
l. 6. It may be proper to note the first edition also has _broche_.
P. 165,
l. 8. _For_ for y^e _read_ for they.
P. 165,
l. 27. _the[y]_; _in_ A they _is printed in full._
P. 166,
l. 18. _For_ raysyus _read_ raysyns.
P. 167,
l. 21. _For_ slytee _read_ slytte.
P. 169,
ll. 10, 18. _carpentes_] carpettes A.
l. 14. _shall_] shake A.
l. 23. _blanked_] blanket A.

Nearly all the above corrections have already been made in the side-notes. Only two of them are of any importance, viz. the substitution of _pynyons_ on p. 158, and the variation of reading on p. 160; in the latter case perhaps neither edition seems quite right, though the first edition is quite intelligible.

In our Cambridge edition (see p. 170, l. 5) this line about the pope is carefully struck out, and the grim side-note put “_lower down_”, with tags to show to what estate he and the cardinal and bishops ought to be degraded!

NOTE TO p. xxiv. l. 10, “OUR WOMEN,”
AND THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF LANGUAGES, p. xxv-vi.

[These pages can be found under the headnote
“NEGLECT OF EDUCATION BY MOTHERS”.]

The Ladies & Men of Queen Elizabeth’s Court.

“I might here (if I would, or had sufficient disposition of matter
conceiued of the same) make a large discourse of such honorable
ports, of such graue councellors, and noble personages, as giue
their dailie attendance vpon the quéenes maiestie there. I could
in like sort set foorth a singular commendation of the vertuous
beautie, or beautifull vertues of such ladies and gentlewomen as
wait vpon hir person, betweene whose amiable countenances and
costlinesse of attire, there séemeth to be such a dailie conflict
and contention, as that it is verie difficult for me to gesse,
whether of the twaine shall beare awaie the preheminence. This
further is not to be omitted, to the singular commendation of both
sorts and sexes of our courtiers here in England, [a] that there
are verie few of them, which haue not the vse and skill of sundrie
speaches, beside an excellent veine of writing before time not
regarded. Would to God the rest of their liues and conuersations
were correspondent to these gifts! for as our common courtiers
(for the most part) are the best lerned and indued with excellent
gifts, so are manie of them the worst men when they come abroad,
that anie man shall either heare or read of. Trulie it is a rare
thing with vs now, to heare of a courtier which hath but his owne
language. [b] And to saie how many gentlewomen and ladies there
are, that beside sound knowledge of the Gréeke and Latine toongs,
are thereto no lesse skilfull in the Spanish, Italian, and French,
or in some one of them, it resteth not in me: sith I am persuaded,
that as the noble men and gentlemen doo surmount in this behalfe,
so these come verie little or nothing at all behind them for their
parts; which industrie God continue, and accomplish that which
otherwise is wanting!

[Sidenotes ([b] bracketed in original):
[a] English courtiers the best learned & the worst liuers.
[[b] Ladies learned in languages.]]

“[a] Beside these things I could in like sort set downe the waies
and meanes, wherby our ancient ladies of the court doo shun and
auoid idlenesse, some of them exercising their fingers with the
needle, other in caul-worke, diuerse in spinning of silke, some in
continuall reading either of the holie scriptures, or histories of
our owne or forren nations about vs, and diuerse in writing
volumes of their owne, or translating of other mens into our
English and Latine toong, [b] whilest the yoongest sort in the
meane time applie their lutes, citharnes, prickesong, and all kind
of musike, which they vse onelie for recreation sake, when they
haue leisure, and are frée from attendance vpon the quéenes
maiestie, or such as they belong vnto. [c] How manie of the eldest
sort also are skilfull in surgerie and distillation of waters,
beside sundrie other artificiall practises perteining to the
ornature and commendations of their bodies, I might (if I listed
to deale further in this behalfe) easilie declare, but I passe
ouer such maner of dealing, least I should séeme to glauer, and
currie fauour with some of them. Neuerthelesse this I will
generallie saie of them all, that as [d] ech of them are cuning in
somthing wherby they kéepe themselues occupied in the court, so
there is in maner none of them, but when they be at home, can
helpe to supplie the ordinarie want of the kitchen with a number
of delicat dishes of their owne deuising, [e] wherein the
Portingall is their chéefe counsellor, as some of them are most
commonlie with the clearke of the kitchen, who vseth (by a tricke
taken vp of late) [f] to giue in a bréefe rehearsall of such and
so manie dishes as are to come in at euerie course throughout the
whole seruice in the dinner or supper while: which bill some doo
call a [g] memoriall, other a billet, but some a fillet, bicause
such are commonlie hanged on the file, and kept by the ladie or
gentlewoman vnto some other purpose. But whither am I digressed?”
--1577, W. HARRISON, in _Holinshed’s Chronicles_, vol. I. p. 196,
ed. 1586.

[Sidenotes (all bracketed in original):
[[a] Ancient ladies’ employments.]
[[b] Young ladies’ recreations.]
[[c] Old ladies’ skill in surgery, &c.]
[[d] All are cunning [e] in cookery, helped by the Portuguese.]
[[f] Introduction of the _Carte_, [g] Memorial, Billet or Fillet.]]

[Footnote 1: This MS. contains a copy of “The Rewle of the Moone,”
fol. 49-67, which I hope to edit for the Society.]

[Footnote 2: The next treatise to Russell in this MS. is “The
booke off the gou{er}naunce off Kyngis and Pryncis,” or _Liber
Aristotiles ad Alexandrum Magnum_, a book of Lydgate’s that we
ought to print from the best MS. of it. At fol. 74 b. is a
heading,--

Here dyed this translatour and noble poette Lidgate and the yong
follower gan his prolog on this wys.]

[Footnote 3: One can fancy that a cook like Wolsey’s (described by
Cavendish, vol. i. p. 34), “a Master Cook who went daily in damask
satin, or velvet, with a chain of gold about his neck” (a mark of
nobility in earlier days), would be not _leef_ but _loth_ to obey
an usher and marshal.]

[Footnote 4: Warton, ii. 264-8, ed. 1840. For further details
about the Duke see the Appendix to this Preface.]

[Footnote 5: See one MS., “How to serve a Lord,” ab. 1500 A.D.,
quoted in the notes to the Camden Society’s Italian Relation of
England, p. 97.]

[Footnote 6: For the Early English Text Society.]

[Footnote 7: I have put figures before the motions in the dress
and undress drills, for they reminded me so of “Manual and
Platoon: by numbers.”]

[Footnote 8: Mr Way says that the _planere_, l. 58, is an article
new to antiquarians.]

[Footnote 9: Randle Holme’s tortoise and snails, in No. 12 of his
Second Course, Bk. III., p. 60, col. 1, are stranger still.
“Tortoise need not seem strange to an alderman who eats turtle,
nor to a West Indian who eats terrapin. Nor should snails, at
least to the city of Paris, which devours myriads, nor of Ulm,
which breeds millions for the table. Tortoises are good; snails
excellent.” Henry H. Gibbs.]

[Footnote 10: “It is nought all good to the goost that the gut
asketh” we may well say with William who wrote _Piers Ploughmon_,
v. 1, p. 17, l. 533-4, after reading the lists of things eatable,
and dishes, in Russell’s pages. The later feeds that Phylotheus
Physiologus exclaims against[*] are nothing to them: “What an
_Hodg-potch_ do most that have Abilities make in their Stomachs,
which must wonderfully oppress and distract Nature: For if you
should take _Flesh_ of various sorts, _Fish_ of as many,
_Cabbages_, _Parsnops_, _Potatoes_, _Mustard_, _Butter_, _Cheese_,
a _Pudden_ that contains more then ten several Ingredents,
_Tarts_, _Sweet-meats_, _Custards_, and add to these _Churries_,
_Plums_, _Currans_, _Apples_, _Capers_, _Olives_, _Anchovies_,
_Mangoes_, _Caveare_, _&c._, and jumble them altogether into one
_Mass_, what Eye would not loath, what Stomach not abhor such a
_Gallemaufrey?_ yet this is done every Day, and counted _Gallent
Entertainment_.”]

[Footnote 10*: Monthly Observations for the preserving of
Health, 1686, p. 20-1.]

[Footnote 11: See descriptions of a dinner in Parker’s Domestic
Architecture of the Middle Ages, iii. 74-87 (with a good cut of
the Cupboard, Dais, &c.), and in Wright’s _Domestic Manners and
Customs_. Russell’s description of the Franklin’s dinner, l.
795-818, should be noted for the sake of Chaucer’s Franklin, and
we may also notice that Russell orders butter and fruits to be
served on an empty stomach before dinner, l. 77, as a whet to the
appetite. _Modus Cenandi_ serves potage first, and keeps the
fruits, with the spices and biscuits, for dessert.]

[Footnote 12: The extracts from Bulleyn, Borde, Vaughan, and
Harington are in the nature of notes, but their length gave one
the excuse of printing them in bigger type as parts of a Text. In
the same way I should have treated the many extracts from Laurens
Andrewe, had I not wanted them intermixed with the other notes,
and been also afraid of swelling this book to an unwieldy size.]

[Footnote 13: The Termes of a Kerver so common in MSS. are added,
p. 151, and the subsequent arrangement of the modes of carving the
birds under these Termes, p. 161-3. The Easter-Day feast (p. 162)
is also new, the bit why the heads of pheasants, partridges, &c.,
are unwholesome--’for they ete in theyr degrees foule thynges, as
wormes, todes, and other suche,’ p. 165-6--and several other
pieces.]

[Footnote 14: _do the_, l. 115, is _clothe_ in the MS.; _grayne_,
l. 576 (see too ll. 589, 597,) is _grayue_, Scotch _greive_, A.S.
_gerefa_, a kind of bailiff; _resceyne_, ll. 547, 575, is
_resceyue_, receive; &c.]

[Footnote 15: This is doubtless a different book from Hugh
Rhodes’s _Booke of Nurture & Schoole of Good Manners_, p. 71,
below.]

[Footnote 16: What this _Edyllys Be_ means, I have no idea, and
five or six other men I have asked are in the same condition. A.S.
_æþel_ is noble, _æþeling_, a prince, a noble; that may do for
_edyllys_. _Be_ may be for A B C, alphabet, elementary grammar of
behaviour.]

[Footnote 17: P.S. Mr Hazlitt, iv. 366, notices two others in MS.
Ashmole 59, art. 57, and in Cotton MS. Calig. A II. fol. 13, the
latter of which and Ashmole 61, are, he says, of a different
translation.]

[Footnote 18: See Hazlitt, iv. 366.]

[Footnote 19: The MS. has no title. The one printed I have made up
from bits of the text.]

[Footnote 20: Still one is truly thankful for the material in
these unindexed books.]

[Footnote 21: Sharon Turner’s _History of England_, vol. v. pp.
496-8.]

[Footnote 22: This is the stanza quoted by Dr Reinhold Pauli in
his _Bilder aus Alt-England_, c. xi. p. 349:

“Herzog von Glocester nennen sie den Fürsten,
Der trotz des hohen Rangs und hoher Ehren
Im Herzen nährt ein dauerndes Gelüsten
Nach Allem, was die alten Bücher lehren;
So glücklich gross ist hierin sein Begehren,
Dass tugendsam er seine Zeit verbringt
Und trunkne Trägheit männiglich bezwingt.”

The reader should by all means consult this chapter, which is
headed “Herzog Humfrid von Glocester. Bruchstück eines
Fürstenlebens im fünfzehnten Jahrhunderte” (Humphrey Duke of
Gloucester. Sketch of the life of a prince in the fifteenth
century). There is an excellent English translation of this book,
published by Macmillan, and entitled “Pictures of Old England.”
--W. W. Skeat.]

* * * * *
* * * *
* * * * *

COLLATIONS.