Hoccleves hands: the mise-en-page of the autograph and non-autograph manuscripts.
One of the limitations of analyzing scribal readings has been our uncertainty over whether a change in a manuscript is purely the scribal interpretation of the text or an imitation of a previous scribal interpretation in an exemplar. Scribes were, of course, supposed to copy out texts accurately, and for this reason Chaucer writes about his frustration over his scriveyn damaging his text through "negligence and rape." (5) Chaucer's Canterbury Tales manuscripts were produced from a muddle of disparate exemplars, and so each of them varies in some way from the next with no demonstrable authorial control. In Hoccleve's case, however, we have unique samples against which we may compare scribal copies and revisions. Importantly, the end look of the manuscript page was a complex affair and a combination of numerous factors: not only the scribe's own training and practices inherited from older manuscript exemplars, which both informed and set boundaries for what he might offer on the page, but also the influence of the network of producers--limners and decorators, for example--who collaborated on the end look of the page, as well as patron demands. (6)
Hoccleve, as both author and scribe, had control over each of these factors: he produced his own manuscript pages and so his mise-en-page--the positioning of the text and paraphs, initials, borders, rubrics, and running titles on the manuscript page--embodies each of these numerous influences. (7) As this article demonstrates, Hoccleve's autograph manuscripts display two simultaneous concerns: he lays out his text on the manuscript page in order that the reader sees lucid meaning; at the same time, he demonstrates a concern with representing clearly his literary form--the structure and complexity of his verse. Conversely, the scribes of the non-autograph manuscripts prioritize only one of these two concerns: they choose form over meaning.
Hoccleve's Autograph Manuscripts
Hoccleve, a scribe by profession, copied numerous documents for the privy seal. .(8) We also know from his participation in the Trinity Gower manuscript (Trinity College, Cambridge MS R.3.2), a copy of the Confessio Amantis, that he also produced literary manuscripts other than his own. A. I. Doyle and M. B. Parkes describe Hoccleve's contribution to this manuscript as "small" and go on to say, rather unsympathetically, that:
he can hardly have been the entrepreneur who engaged the other scribes, because his own failure to complete the book or to supervise its production is more marked than that of others.... Hoccleve was also a Clerk of the Privy Seal, an expert professional scribe. The Trinity manuscript is the only instance yet found of Hoccleve's copying an English work other than his own, and in this instance he was collaborating in a team of scribes of whom at least one, D, seems to have been a full-time producer of books. (9)
Hoccleve's contribution to the Trinity Gower was only two and half folios in length (fols. 82r-84r: the second column on fol. 84r is blank, in Book V, 7083-7498), but his version of this section of the text is almost identical to other scribes' copies of it. By indenting lines of text, Hoccleve leaves spaces for flourished initials to be inserted by a decorator. He positions these indentations at exactly those lines where initials are found in every single early copy of Gower's text. While he may not demonstrate a flair for entrepreneurship here, he does demonstrate a careful concern with layout and with copying the text correctly, not giving his own interpretation of the poetic text but rather responding with care to Gower's established literary meanings and with awareness of the decorator's role to come. He reacts to Gower in the way that each of the other copyists in the Trinity manuscript do.
Hoccleve's careful behavior in the Trinity Gower suggests that he would be equally if not more careful when producing his own manuscript page, where he is both author and scribe. As John Burrow demonstrates in his thorough comparison of the two copies of "Lerne to Dye" in Hoccleve's own hand, Hoccleve copied both texts with remarkable accuracy and stability, and although there are omissions in one copy, there is little variance between the two. (10) Hoccleve is far from adventurous in the layout of his texts in his autograph manuscripts. In all three of his autograph manuscripts, Hoccleve has left numerous paraphs (or guide marks to indicate where paraphs are to be inserted at a later stage of production) to indicate dialogic changes, poetic development, and thematic structure. In his "Dialogue" in the Cosin manuscript, Hoccleve lays out a section of his text thus:
A paraph is placed within the stanza here and indicates the opening of each new speech in the dialogue between "Thomas" and the Friend. The paraph adjacent to "Thomas I noot" indicates the Friend's reply to Thomas's questions. This is followed by a rubbed paraph with a visible guide mark beneath to indicate Thomas's surprised reply: "No freend." Two more paraphs likewise indicate the continuation of the rapid exchange between the two speakers, as is fairly standard for fifteenth century manuscripts. Hoccleve aims, therefore, to undo ambiguity and to clarify the meaning of his text in two different ways. He is first concerned with explaining the relation of the speeches as dialogue between the two speakers. The paraphs act as quotation marks in the dialogue. Secondly, the dialogue itself here outlines the Friend's misinterpretation of "th'epistle of Cupyde" mentioned twenty-seven lines earlier, and Thomas's speech attempts to describe the profeminist flavor of his text, using the text's mise-en-page for support.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Paraphs or guide marks (usually in the shape "cc") often indicate smaller units of meaning as well as sentence punctuation. In HM744, for example, Hoccleve leaves cc-shaped guide marks to indicate the structure of his text:
cc First how lerne die telle wole y
cc The second how bat a man lyue shal
cc The .iii.de how a man sacramentally Receyue me shal wel and worthyly
cc The .iiii.e how with an herte clene and pure
That a man loue me shal and honure (HM744 fol. 53v)
Here each guide mark not only indicates a change in topic but also demonstrates Hoccleve's clear poetic style and the orderly, logical progression of his work, marking the first, second, third, and fourth points made in the stanza. Placed as they are here, the paraphs and guide marks indicate these internal, textual changes codicologically in the margins. Hoccleve's numerical list of imperatives both structures the reading process and underlines the progression of the text. Similarly, guide marks and paraphs are placed where the text changes topic: the evolution of the discussion of prosperity and of the follies of youth at the opening of La male regie to the discussion of the virtues of reason is marked with a paraph (fols. 16v-26r; fol. 18v). Likewise, he indicates the repeated use of the apostrophe "O" in the "Conpleynte Paramont" in HM111 (fols. 3r-7r with the first six stanzas missing).
There are two different positions of paraphs here: marginal and mid-text. It was fairly common in manuscripts produced in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries to have marginal paraphs, as can be seen in every copy of Chaucer and Gower's texts copied around the same time as the Hoccleve autographs. However, in manuscripts containing a stanzaic text, paraphs were usually limited to indicating the first line of each stanza. (11) Hoccleve goes further than this and places paraphs adjacent to lines other than the head of each stanza. In the "Conpleynte Paramont," Hoccleve seems to be indicating stanzaic heads with his use of marginal paraphs. The first ten paraphs happen to mark stanzaic heads as well as apostrophic statements. However, the last is placed adjacent to line 227, "O sones of Adam," which is the third line of a stanza. Hoccleve demonstrates careful attention to the marking of his text in a way that is more detailed than most other manuscripts produced at this time, and he demonstrates sensitivity to the poetic patterns within stanzaic structures of his text. The use of paraphs at points other than stanza-heads is discussed in a short note by Stephanie Kamath as corresponding to the French lyric tradition, which Hoccleve maybe imitating. (12) This is rare practice in English manuscripts produced in the first quarter of the fifteenth century. Not a single manuscript of Troilus and Criseyde produced in the first quarter of the fifteenth century contains such a mid-stanza paraph. (13) Hoccleve does this ninety times in total throughout his autograph manuscripts.
Rarer still, in addition to the marginal paraphs, Hoccleve also provides mid-line paraphs. They indicate not just speeches that open at the start of the line but also those that begin halfway (see 1. 5 in Fig. 1). These are not common: there are only five instances in Cosin (fols. 41r, 79v, 89v and two on 25v). But the text itself contains only a few markers of dialogue. Only rarely does he use the word "quod" (four times) and only once the word "seide" in the "Dialogue" to indicate direct dialogue. Likewise, Hoccleve seldom uses the word "quod" (eight times), "answerede" (four times) or "seide" (three times) in the Regiment. More often, he uses indirect indicators of speaker, referring to the old man as "fadir" in order to begin his speeches in the Regiment (ninety one times), and the old man replying with "sone" (fifty-eight times), for example. The mise-en-page is therefore necessary to support these indirect indicators of speech in identifying speech openings which often begin mid-line.
Both John Bowers and John Thompson write about Hoccleve's careful revision processes in creating the autograph manuscripts. (14) These were produced toward the end of his life, often later than the non-autograph manuscripts. He omits some of the Latin glosses in one of his copies of "Lerne to Dye," for instance, though the glosses are found in other, nonautograph manuscripts already produced. Several variants in non-autograph manuscripts, including glosses that are not in the autograph manuscripts, seem to have come from Hoccleve himself. This suggests that Hoccleve continuously rewrote and reworked his texts, even after other copies had been produced, considering carefully his meaning as he did so.
By marking up these speech beginnings, regardless of their position in the line, Hoccleve demonstrates his larger authorial concerns: to be understood accurately. Indeed many of his texts are continuously apprehensive about "How vndirstande am I," the misrepresentation of the author (Dialogue 1.774). Hoccleves layouts in his autograph manuscripts seem to associate the misreading of his texts, especially the structures they contain (the dialogue format, the repeated apostrophe), with the misunderstanding of their deeper meanings. His layout attempts to shepherd the reader into a particular reading of his text.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
However, this is not the only function of Hoccleve's layout. Most visually prominent are the paraphs and guide marks that are employed not to demonstrate textual meaning but rather to demonstrate poetic form. In addition to paraphs and guide marks, Hoccleve provides further features of layout in his autograph manuscripts: blank lines are left on each page, and characteristic "2"-shaped horizontal lines spread across the width of the page, filling these blanks. This seems an odd feature for the author to provide, one that does not fulfill the same functions as the paraphs and guide marks discussed above: the line gaps filled with horizontal lines do not indicate dialogic changes, meaning, or thematic structure. Rather, the most perceptible features of manuscript mise-en-page on Hoccleve's autograph page are used to indicate another aspect of the poetry: Hoccleve's stanzaic form. (15)
This visual emphasis on form appears regularly throughout every single folio of verse in all three of Hoccleve's autograph manuscripts and dominates the look of each page, rendering mid-stanza and mid-line paraphs of secondary prominence. Equally, in each of the autograph manuscripts, Hoccleve has ruled his pages so that he takes care never to split a stanza in half across two folios: Cosin has between three and five complete stanzas per page (see Fig. 2), HM111 has either three stanzas of seven lines or three stanzas of eight lines per page, and HM744 has three complete stanzas per page. The stanza form is stubbornly prioritized.
Where rubrics are added to this carefully calculated page, they take up a space reserved for an entire stanza, with a surrounding seven line gap, so as to maintain the full stanza format. (16) Had the rubric taken up a single line in the interests of economic production, the final line of the last stanza would have moved to the next folio. Instead, although wasting seven lines of potentially useable space, the stanza form is maintained.
The employment of this layout may be part of ensuring that Hoccleve's readers understand this text to be very different from the documentary texts he also produces. Hoccleves Formulary, British Library, Additional MS 24062, contains letters and warrants and is written almost entirely in prose. This is laid out on the page in an equally careful way: guide marks are placed throughout the margins to indicate the paragraphs in the prose text, a similar indication of shifts in meaning as found in his poetic texts. However, there is, of course, no indication of form, even when the text's form is complex, such as the listing of the contents of the entire document (fols. 2r-4v). The careful indication of form in his autograph manuscripts makes these texts immediately very distinct from those documents he also produces. Verse requires a different treatment and follows in a different tradition.
The careful preservation of verse form is a layout typically employed in Continental manuscripts. Ardis Butterfield discusses French influences on the production of English manuscripts. (17) Focusing specifically on Troilus and Criseyde, she argues that the layout of the songs in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 638; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Tanner 346; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Fairfax 16; and Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.3.20 of Troilus and Criseyde imitates the layout of ballad collections in, for example, Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, MS f.fr 25458; London, British Library, MS Royal 16 F.ii; and London, British Library, MS Harley 682, in use of initials supplemented by paraphs and end-of-section positurae. The same may be said for the indication of the stanzaic structure. Hoccleve's indication of his stanzas may be in imitation of these Continental traditions.
Equally, in writing in rhyme royale stanzas, Hoccleve demonstrates his Chaucerian lineage. Nicholas Perkins has recently collated the numerous parallels and textual borrowings between Troilus and Criseyde and The Regiment of Princes, indicating that "Hoccleve's debt to Chaucer is more active, more integral to his style and poetic persona" than first believed. (18) Indeed, a later hand defines Hoccleve against Chaucer and writes above the table of contents in the Formulary: "Tho. Harkliff, Clerke du pryve Seal en le temps S[eignur] Geffray Chaucer" (Additional 24062, fol. 2r). Hoccleve's text interacts with those authors he claims to be his ancestors, so that his poetry responds to and engages with his literary predecessors. His manuscript mise-en-page does likewise. Hoccleve's manuscripts seem to be imitating not only the text but also the look of the stanza in the Troilus manuscripts. (19) Using guide marks, paraphs, or initials, the opening of each stanza is indicated throughout the majority of the manuscripts of Hoccleve's texts (both autograph and non-autograph), as they are carefully throughout the majority of the manuscripts of Troilus. In combining discrete poetic units in which Hoccleve writes his text with the line gaps and horizontal lines that he provides in his manuscripts, the author-scribe seems to be concerned with engaging with his literary predecessor through his manuscript page.
However, Hoccleve's two concerns do not fully tie together. In both Hoccleve's and Chaucer's manuscripts, the indication of stanzaic units undermines the other poetic structures present in the text. There are numerous instances in Troilus where the sentence or the fluid progression of the text crosses over the stanza boundary. The line gap that separates stanzas is placed squarely in the middle of a sentence at II: 56-57 for instance, "As I shal synge, on Mayes day the thrydde, / That Pandarus, for al his wise spechewhere the sentence continues over two stanzaic units. Likewise, a stanza at I: 771-777 contains a series of questions posed by Pandarus and Troilus's responses. These are not indicated in any way by the manuscript layout. Paraphs, which usually indicate the beginning of a new narrative shift, here indicate only the beginning of stanzas, as if cutting the narrative in two with each new stanza opening and ignoring any other poetic structures in the text. Form here, the visual rendering of the text on the manuscript page, does not constitute clear meaning but rather disrupts it. Likewise, Hoccleve's dialogic structure and development in narrative cross over his stanzaic boundaries. However, Hoccleve did not feel the line gap enough of a break between his complete stanzaic units and so inserts his "2"-shaped horizontal lines between each one.
In doing so, Hoccleve, though attempting to render the meaning of his poetry clearly on his manuscript pages, simultaneously undoes his efforts of textual dexterity by segregating his verse visually into the verse format. He attempts to combine clear meaning with complex poetic form--to demonstrate that he can both write with clarity and simultaneously execute, craftsman-like, the rhyme royal stanzas. However, his execution of these simultaneous impulses separates his poetic form from his meaning. Rather than elucidating one another these are kept distinct by the layout of the page, suggesting that Hoccleve was aware of a different approach to textual analysis and interpretation by his readers.
As a man of the book trade, Hoccleve would have also been aware that his own manuscripts could have been used as exemplars. The transmission of Troilus, as Ralph Hanna discusses, was certainly complex, with inconsistent sources resulting in layers of exemplars that influenced each copy. (20) Hoccleve's concern with displaying the stanza form of his text could plausibly be due to a concern with practicality: in the booklet copying of Troilus, it was certainly more straightforward to copy stanza by stanza and so keep the rhyme royale form complete. Hoccleve's careful representation of dialogue, meaning, and textual form through his manuscript mise-en-page strongly suggests a concern with ensuring that his meaning is transmitted from copy to copy. Likewise, cautious stanza layout may simultaneously have been an awareness of scribal copy practices--to ensure that half his form is not lost on a scribal rendition of his text. This is demonstrated by the non-autograph manuscripts.
The Non-Autograph Manuscripts
The non-autograph manuscripts are comparable to Hoccleve's own. They rarely contain all of his texts together--Fairfax 16 contains only "Lepistre de Cupid" (fols. 40r-47v) and a "Balade" (fols. 198v-199r)--but are usually of a similar size and usually decorated to a similar standard. Like HM111 and HM744, Bodley 638, for instance, is fairly small and scrappy; Digby 181 is larger but has unfinished decoration and is fairly plain, and so is comparable to the autograph manuscripts. They are not direct copies of Hoccleve's autograph manuscripts, but an examination alongside the autographs offers some of the responses of scribes to his texts in comparison to his own concerns.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Scribes were, of course, intelligent copyists who were often trained to produce documents. The identification of scribes by Linne Mooney, Estelle Stubbs, and Simon Horobin certainly suggests that some of the manuscripts analyzed here were produced by those who possibly worked for the civic secretariat at the Guildhall and other London guilds and were members of the Stationers' Company but who simultaneously produced literary books. (21) In the process, they "revised" or "corrected" the texts they copied in a way distinct from "mechanical errors of transmission" (though these were also numerous). (22) As demonstrated by the differences between Hoccleve's Formulary and his autograph manuscripts, there were a number of practical differences in the processes involved in the production of a literary manuscript and the copying a document. Scribes also operated under the influence of practices they inherited, often through Continental manuscripts that contained poetic texts. As above, manuscripts of French lyrics display verse form and the differences between various verse forms.
A few Anglo-Norman texts, for example, pay attention to the verse form of the text in the layout: the mid-twelfth century copy of the Chanson de Roland, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 23, for example is marked in this way. This manuscript has large initials to mark the beginning of the laisses of unequal length and so indicate the rhyme of the text on the page. The Auchinleck and Vernon manuscripts (Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, Advocates MS 19.2.1; and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Eng.Poet.a.1 respectively), which are closer in date to fifteenth-century commercial book production, also offer this marking of stanzas. The second and third parts of Guy of Warwick in the Auchinleck manuscript, for example, are marked throughout with paraphs to indicate the head of each stanza (see fols. 147r ff.) Likewise, the Golden Trental and the King of Tars in the Vernon manuscript have twelve- or six-line stanzas respectively indicated by paraphs (fols. 303r and 304v ff.). Manuscripts of Troilus and Criseyde, in imitation, indicate the differences between songs and letters through their layout. Fifteenth-century scribes therefore imitated their sources in presenting the stanzas of rhyme royale. This in itself may seem a simplistic assertion. But it demonstrates some scribal attitudes toward the text, and an engagement first and foremost with the particular aspects of the verse makes it distinct from others.
Hoccleve's non-autograph manuscripts exaggerate what is found in their sources and tend to concentrate on exaggerating the stanza form on the manuscript page. As well as separating out each stanza with a line gap, the non-autograph manuscripts often also use horizontal lines to mark the beginning of each stanza so that it is clearly distinct from the last. These lines spread across the width of the page so as to demarcate further a complete rhyme unit. In manuscripts that were too small for a line gap, scribes planned to signal stanzas by placing paraphs and initials at the opening lines of each.
Sometimes scribes combined both these features so that not only are line gaps left between stanzas, but in order to ensure that there is a clear distinction between stanzas, these line gaps are also filled in with decorative horizontal lines that do not allow the eye to ignore the gap between the end of one unit of rhyme and the beginning of the next.
In addition to the line gaps and horizontal lines, these manuscripts further exaggerate the rhyme scheme of each text: not content with demarcating stanza units, the scribes segregate the stanza into its component rhymes. Bodley 221, Laud Misc. 735, and Digby 185, for example, have tie fines to indicate each pair of rhyming fines. These tie together the first and third fines, the second and fourth, and the sixth and seventh, the rhyming pairs within the stanza, thus breaking down the stanza into its composite parts and displaying the makeup of the larger poetic unit. The scribe of Bodley 221 takes this a step further by alternating red and green ink on two folios (see Fig. 3). (23) The colored tie fines here indicate separate pairs within the stanza to exaggerate the alternation of the rhyme scheme.
A copy of The Regiment of Princes, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 496 (Cc), also has tie fines: these are used only on the last folio of the text, folio 60, where they demonstrate the rhyme of the last section entitled "Verba compilatoris ad librum" (as named in the TEAMS edition of the text and in some manuscripts). (24) This section is made up of three stanzas of eight fines rather than stanzas of rhyme royal in seven fines, as throughout the rest of the text. The scribe of Cc demonstrates a careful sensitivity toward the poetic form and changes in poetic form in the text as a whole and reflects changes on the page by altering the mise-en-page.
Like Hoccleve's own copies of the minor poems, non-autograph copies of the Regiment of Princes usually maintain four stanzas to a page, with the larger manuscripts managing five stanzas per page. Some manuscripts are planned for this: A, Ha4, Ry2, Ry3, Na, As, Do, Hnl, and Hn2 are ruled with thirty-one fines per folio, which corresponds to four stanzas per page with a fine gap between each stanza; likewise Qu and Ral are ruled with thirty-nine fines and so are planned to hold five stanzas with a fine gap per page; and Ry4, Ma, and Tc are ruled with twenty-eight fines, planned to hold four stanzas per page without a fine gap.
A few manuscripts accidentally spoil these carefully calculated pages and sometimes have incomplete sets of stanzas per page with a few extra fines per folio. The scribes of these manuscripts are, however, quick to remedy this. In the case of A, Ha4, and Ad, the addition of a rubric causes one line of the stanza to be forced on to the next page. These scribes work over the next few folios to readjust the layout and to ensure that eventually the stanzas are complete once more. The rubric on folio 39v of MS A, for example, takes up the space of a line so that four stanzas no longer neatly fit onto one page. The remainder of the last stanza has to move onto the next folio so that each folio thereafter has three full and two half stanzas per folio. However, the scribe calculates the number of ruled lines over the next few folios and on folio 45r inserts a rubric in a larger, more formal hand that takes up the space of the residual half stanza on the page. This enables the layout to be readjusted to hold four complete stanzas per folio. Likewise, Ry3 demonstrates the same concern: from folio 75v to folio 81r, the complete stanza layout is thrown off slightly, and the rubric causes two lines to be carried over. (25) The scribe therefore works over the next few folios to readjust the complete-stanza layout: from folio 76r to folio 77r, two lines carry over from the previous stanza onto the next folio; folio 77vhas three carried over lines; by folio 79v, four lines are carried over, then five on folio 80r, then six, until the complete stanza is readjusted and the layout is fixed by folio 81r. The complexity of such a task underlines the non-autograph manuscripts' interest with the stanzaic form here--one that rivals Hoccleve's own concern to indicate his form on the page.
However, not only do the non-autograph manuscripts indicate verse form, they do so often to the detriment of clear meaning. Two manuscripts, S12 and Kk, preserve the stanzaic form in a different way: in addition to line gaps and paraphs, the scribes place the Latin glosses in the text column. The first Latin gloss is placed thus:
For ferthermore, in Holy Writ I rede Augustinus: Volve vitam salvatoris a tempore sue nativitatis usque ad crucis patibulum, et non invenies in ea nisi stigmata paupertatis. Numquid ergo homo melior est deo? [Augustine: "Reflect on the life of our Saviour from the time of his birth to his torture on the Cross, and you will not find in it anything except the stigma of poverty. Is man therefore better than God?] (26) Beholde the lyf of our Sauveour, Right fro the tyme of His nativitee (11. 1078-1080; S12 fol. 18v; Kkfol. 16v; TEAMS punctuation)
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
The Latin note causes the English text below it to repeat what has already been stated. Inserting the marginal gloss into the main text at this point subverts and elevates the status of the marginal gloss to the central column, causing it to appear more central to the comprehension of this text than it is in the majority of manuscripts. Hoccleve's verse stanza that follows, therefore, becomes an unnecessary translation of the Latin rather than a clear explanation to the narrator. Additionally, the scribe of Kk inserts the next Latin gloss at this point, following immediately after the first gloss. Appending the gloss above, the scribe adds:
Bernardus in sermone de vigilia natalis domini: Nonne magna abusio est et nimis magna, ut ubi dives esse velit vilis vermiculus, propter quem deus magestatis et dominus sabaoth dignatus est voluntarie pauper fieri? [Bernard, in the Sermon on the Vigil of the Nativity of our Lord: 'Is it not a great abuse, even excessively great, that where he wanted to be rich, a vile worm, on whose account the God of majesty and the Lord Sabaoth deigns to become a pauper voluntarily?'] (27)
This disrupts the flow of the English verse and does little for the sense of the text: the gloss becomes now not a Latin rendition of what is to come in the verse stanza to follow but a digression from the happenings in the central text column. Even though these Latin glosses are in red ink in both S12 and Kk, and so stand out as visually separate from the main verse text, they nevertheless interrupt the sense of the piece. However, the Latin gloss is never allowed to interrupt a complete stanza. Rather it is carefully placed in the gap between the end of one stanza and the beginning of the next, and thus the stanzaic form is even more obvious in a glance at the page than in other manuscripts. The disruption of the logical sense and fluid progression of the main text does not seem to have been the primary concern of these scribes; rather it was of greater importance to ensure that the stanza format of the text was the first noticeable part of its manuscript rendering.
If we compare the autograph to the non-autograph manuscripts of the minor poems, we see that whereas Hoccleve uses paraphs to indicate the structure of his poetry--the dialogue or the poetic development--the nonautograph manuscripts display a different interest. Hoccleve takes pains to indicate all dialogue so that the reader is in no doubt as to the speaker of each line of text, and the mid-stanza placement of the paraphs indicates the extent of his concern for a clear rendition of the text on the manuscript page. The non-autograph manuscripts, however, ignore this altogether and indicate only the start of each stanza, thereby highlighting the form of the text instead of the meaning. Unlike Hoccleve's autographs, the non-autograph manuscripts never have mid-line or mid-stanza paraphs; nor do they replace these with other indicators of speech or topic development. As such, the scribes of these manuscripts have changed the use of the paraph and the initial: whereas Hoccleve uses the paraph to indicate clauses, or changes in topic or speaker within each stanza, this was not the function of the paraphs and initials in the non-autograph manuscripts. Here the paraph is used solely to exaggerate the stanza form on the page.
Furthermore, not only do the non-autograph manuscripts choose to indicate the stanza rather than the textual meaning; the indication of the stanza often confuses the meaning itself. The scribe of Ashmole 40 (As) ignores any speeches that begin mid-stanza and marks only the beginning of each stanza with a flourished initial (see Fig. 4). On folio 36v, for example a large initial is placed adjacent to the line "Now fare wel sone go home to thi mete." The speech itself, however, begins two lines above this, in the middle of the previous stanza, at "Sone, thow seist wel ynow, as me seemeth."
The scribe of MS As delays the marking of the speech until the first line of the following stanza: he indicates the change in speaker with a larger initial, but only where this coincides with the stanza head. Thus only the beginning of the stanzas, the poetic unit, is indicated, and not its contents or its meaning. It is possible that the indication of the word "Now" was largely a reflex reaction to the text. Often new episodes begin with "Now," which here appears to be the natural starting point and so a logical, pragmatic choice for the placement of a large initial. Hoccleve was certainly aware of such a traditional opening and chose to delay this word until the beginning of a new stanza rather than at the mid-stanza opening of the speech. Again, as a scribe himself and so aware of scribal practices, Hoccleve's verse may have been deliberately designed to fit with established scribal techniques. However, Gower's scribes are quite comfortable with marking speech openings within a body of continuous text. The Confessio is, of course, in couplets and not stanzas, and so does not have line gaps. The scribes mark the opening of each speech with an initial, although there is no line gap to indicate where they are to place the initial. Horobin's and Mooney and Stubbs's findings on the overlapping circles of scribes who copied these major texts suggest that Hoccleve's scribes were also capable of such practices. The delay in placing the initial in the example of As above thus appears to be deliberate rather than a result of inability or misunderstanding. Here it demonstrates scribal interest in the stanzaic form of the text overlapping with a more pragmatic response to copying poetry.
In doing this, these manuscripts depict Hoccleve in a specific way. In prioritizing the form of the text, scribes here play with the idea of the poet: they create, through the layout of their texts, the poetic author, one who successfully negotiates the complex form of the rhyme schemes in the making of his text. The early fifteenth century saw a sudden increase in the production and distribution of literary manuscripts. Texts by Chaucer, Gower, Langland, and Hoccleve'stood at the center of this production. In creating a layout in which the form of the text is emphasized over its meaning, in downplaying the text's sense in order to emphasize its rhyme, the scribes demonstrate a specific set of responses to the emerging literary author. The discrepancy between Hoccleves autograph and non-autograph manuscripts offers the scribes' understanding of the literary text--that (rather simplistically, we may feel) manuscripts of poetry must exhibit primarily its verse form.
Again, the scribes of Hoccleves manuscripts here lay out their texts in a way that is also comparable to the scribes of Troilus. The manuscripts of Troilus are ruled with stanzas in mind and are deliberately designed in such a way as not to break stanzas across two folios. The majority of the earliest copies of Troilus maintain five (occasionally six) complete stanzas per page, and such page layout seems to have been routine. The scribes of the Corpus Christi College MS 61 Troilus (CCCC 61), for example, leave large blank spaces in which images could be inserted. These spaces, like those in Hoccleve's texts, never once interrupt a stanza. Equally, the manuscripts are ruled to ensure complete stanzas per page: CCCC 61, for example, has thirty-nine lines ruled per folio (except for those folios with blank spaces for illustrations, which are not ruled); Gg.4.27, Pierpont Morgan 817, and Harley 3943 are ruled to have thirty-five lines per folio; and Harley 2280 has forty-two lines. Each of these divides by seven so that they each contain only full rhyme royale stanzas: Gg.4.27, Pierpont Morgan 817, and Harley 3943 contain five full stanzas per folio; Harley 2280 has six full stanzas per folio; and CCCC 61 has five full stanzas with blank line gaps between each. The manuscripts were thus planned from the earliest stages of production to ensure that the stanzaic form of the text was displayed on the page. The ruling here ensures that no stanza is split across two pages, resulting in the presence or absence of only complete (not half or parts of) stanzas from copy to copy.
Hoccleve promotes Chaucer in his imitation of, among other aspects, Chaucer's rhyme royal stanzas, and Chaucer is also materially promoted in the Ha4 portrait. Likewise, the practice of privileging the rhyme royale stanzas over the dialogue divisions promotes, on the page, Chaucer's stanzaic form. Scribes demonstrate a concern with displaying Hoccleves material connection to his literary predecessor. A and Ha4 further promote the connection between the authors by imitating the look of San Marino, Huntington Library MS EL 26 C 9 (the Ellesmere manuscript) or CCCC 61.
In laying out their manuscripts comparably, the non-autograph manuscripts demonstrate a limited view of the interaction between Hoccleve and Chaucer. They do not display the stanzaic form as a vehicle by which Hoccleve examines those poetic and literary concepts that play off Chaucer, but see the stanzas as the only level of the interaction. Rather than indicate the overlap of and play between the various meanings of the texts and the deliberate overlap of the two authors, the non-autograph manuscripts instead show the interaction only in terms of the verse form. Moreover, while they resemble the layout of Troilus, these manuscripts offer a greatly exaggerated exhibition of this stanzaic format (adding tie lines, for example) and so employ further methods of ensuring that the stanza--and therefore the rhyme scheme of the text--is most visually noticeable on the page. The scribe of MS Pepys 2101 seems to have been so adamant to mark the beginning of each stanza that on finding on folio 54vthat the marginal Latin gloss encroached on the space reserved for the paraph, he inserted as much as he could of the paraph mark in the space that was left. The result is an odd half-paraph marking the beginning of the stanza. As comically pedantic as this seems, it demonstrates the importance that each scribe placed on indicating the stanzas on the page.
We therefore begin to get a sense of how important it was for both Hoccleve and his scribes to indicate the poetic form of a text on the page when copying their manuscripts. Often this seems to have been of higher importance than the sense of the piece. Scribes here depict a more abstract sense of what they feel poetry ought to be, in a practical, codicological way: poetry is made up of poetic form. Literary texts are those composed of units of rhyme--of literary form more than meaning. As such, scribes separate form from meaning. They establish an opposition between the two, where form does not constitute meaning, but rather, the representation of that form opposes clear meaning. They are less interested in demonstrating the complexity of Hoccleve's verse than Hoccleve is in building it into his manuscript rendition of his verse.
On the manuscript page, Hoccleve is concerned, in the main, with being understood, and the positioning of the layout represents the undoing of nuance and complexity: it does not engage with building complex multilayers of meaning that the reader must decipher of his own accord, but instead is concerned with ensuring that the most basic sense and structure (dialogic change, thematic change) is clearly understood. This seems part of a larger authorial concern on the manuscript page with what lies outside his work--his inheritance of Chaucer's poetic form. As such, these scribes, including Hoccleve himself, were not readers in the way that modern editors are--those that privilege the clear interpretation of meaning. Rather, the mise-en-page of the non-autograph manuscripts suggests an alternative way of approaching poetic texts and demonstrates an important difference in the way that the authors and the scribes who copied their texts responded to literature.
Most recent editions of The Regiment of Princes keep a stanzaic layout, separating the text into seven line sections to ensure this rhyme scheme is maintained on the page. However, the online TEAMS edition of The Regiment sometimes merges two stanzas where the sense of the text is clearer when the line gap is removed:
By that I walkid hadde a certeyn tyme, Were it an hour I not, or more or lesse, A poore old hoor man cam walkynge by me, And seide, "Good day, sire, and God yow blesse!" But I no word, for my seekly distresse Forbad myn eres usen hir office, For which this old man heeld me lewde and nyce, Til he took heede to my drery cheere, And to my deedly colour pale and wan. Than thoghte he thus: "This man that I see heere Al wrong is wrestid, by aght I see can." He stirte unto me and seide, "Sleepstow, man? Awake!" and gan me shake wondir faste, And with a sigh I answerde atte laste: (11.120-133, TEAMS punctuation)
Here the editors have prioritized the text's fluid progression: the beginning of the second stanza, "Til he took heede" is seen as part of the sentence in the first, the line "For which this old man heeld me lewde and nyce" ending with a comma, not a period. It is possible that this maybe a mistake in uploading the text. The printed TEAMS edition does not show a clear desire either to merge or to keep separate these two stanzas--the first appears at the bottom of a page, and the next at the start of the next page, and it is unclear whether a fine gap is placed between the two (though at other places the stanza unit crosses over two pages). However, in both the printed and online editions, the editors accompany the omission of this line gap and their punctuation choices with a note:
While Hoccleve's rhyme-royal stanzas, like Chaucer s, usually end with a full stop, there are many cases, as here, where the thought runs on, to the benefit of narrative flow. If the stanzas are read aloud, it will become apparent that many of the stanzas concluding with a period also continue smoothly to the next stanza. This is not the Spenserian stanza, in which the lengthened last line turns each stanza into a distinct aesthetic unit. (28)
In merging two stanzas, and by offering the accompanying note, the editors privilege clear sense over the stanzaic form. The "distinct aesthetic unit" is here bound up with representing clearly the text's meaning, sharing Hoccleve's concern that readers understand his work. The scribes of the nonautograph manuscripts, however, are concerned only with representing the form, the rhyme and meter of the text, over its sense, where complete poetic units per folio are central to interpreting Hoccleve's poetry.
Malcolm Parkes argues that the layout of a text in a manuscript is central to its reading: "the rules governing the relationships between this complex of graphic conventions and the message of a text conveyed in the written medium--may be described as 'the grammar of legibility.'" (29) This is true for the marking of exempla used in argumentation in those scholastic texts that he describes. (30) Scribes, especially those trained scribes working in London alongside Hoccleve, would have inherited these techniques of laying out texts. In Hoccleve's texts, however, it seems that the scribes wanted to distinguish the literary nature of the verse from other texts they copied, if only by imitating other sources such as the French lyric manuscripts discussed above. In doing so, they demonstrate their level of engagement with the poetry. Scribes have, in recent decades, been considered "professional readers" of the texts they produce--they process the text in order to prepare it for its readers. (31) Here, however, the layout suggests that these scribes may have had a different attitude to such expectations--they were not professional readers in the way that modern editors are, who produce a smooth, linear reading of the text; scribes did not necessarily privilege its sense. Perhaps, then, we ought to think about the meaning of a "professional reader" and the role of a scribe in a different way. This tantalizingly suggests that manuscript producers had a different way of approaching these texts. The representation of form is central, but often form dominates meaning. Scribes seem to distinguish a literary pursuit from a practical one--to them, codicological form, the representation of verses despite meaning on the manuscript page, is valued above poetic nuance, complexity, development, or style.
I am grateful for the comments and advice received at the 2011 Early Book Society Conference in York. Thanks especially to Simon Horobin, Arthur Bahr, Alexandra da Costa, and the anonymous JEBS readers who kindly read this article in draft.
Arn, Mary-Jo. The Poet's Notebook: The Personal Manuscript of Charles d'Orleans (Paris, BnF MS fr. 25458). Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2009.
Blyth, Charles R., ed. The Regiment of Princes. TEAMS Middle English Texts. Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, 1999. Available at http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/hoccfrm.htm.
Bowers, J. M. "Hoccleve's Huntington Holographs: the First 'Collected Poems' in English." Fifteenth-Century Studies 15 (1989): 27-51.
--. "Hoccleve's Two Copies of 'Lerne to Dye': Implications for Textual Critics." Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 83 (1989): 437-472. British Library. "Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts." http: //www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts.
Burrow, J. A., ed. Thomas Hoccleve's Complaint and Dialogue. Oxford: Early English Texts Society, 1999.
Burrow, J. A., and A. I. Doyle, eds., Thomas Hoccleve: A Facsimile of the Autograph Verse Manuscripts: Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino (California), MSS HM 111 and HM 744, Durham (England), MS Cosin V. III. 9. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the Early English Text Society, 2002.
Butterfield, Ardis. "Mise-en-Page in the Troilus Manuscripts: Chaucer and French Manuscript Culture." Huntington Library Quarterly 58 (1995): 49-80.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. "Chaucer's Words unto Adam, His Own Scriveyn." In The Riverside Chaucer, ed. Larry D. Benson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Chavannes-Mazel, C. A. "The Expansion of Rubrics for the Sake of the Layout: Mise-en-Page as Evidence for a Particular Workshop?" In Medieval Book Production: Assessing the Evidence: Proceedings of the Second Conference of the Seminar in the History of the Book to 1500, Oxford, July 1988, ed. L. L. Brownrigg. Los Altos Hills, CA: Anderson-Lovelace, 1990, 117-131.
Claridge, Gordon, Ruth Pryor, and Gwen Watkins. Sounds from the Bell Jar: Ten Psychotic Authors. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 1990.
Doyle, A. I., and M. B. Parkes. "The Production of Copies of The Canterbury Tales and the Confessio Amantis in the Early Fifteenth Century." In Medieval Scribes, Manuscripts and Libraries: Essays Presented to N. R. Ker, ed. M. B. Parkes and Andrew G. Watson. London: Scolar Press, 1978, 163-210.
Feder, Lillian. Madness in Literature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980.
Fisher, John. John Gower: Moral Philosopher and Friend of Chaucer. London: Methuen, 1965.
Hanna, Ralph. "The Manuscripts and Transmission of Chaucer's Troilus" Pursuing History: Middle English Manuscripts and their Texts. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996, 115-129.
Hoccleve, Thomas. Hoccleve's Works: The Minor Poems I, ed. F. J. Furnivall, EETS 61 (1892), reissued with The Minor Poems II ed. I. Gollancz, EETS ES 73 (1897), in one volume, revised by Jerome Mitchell and A. I. Doyle, 1970.
--. "My Compleinte" and Other Poems, ed. Roger Ellis. Exeter, UK: Exeter University Press, 2001.
Horobin, Simon. "The Edmund-Fremund Scribe Copying Chaucer." JEBS 12 (2009): 195-203.
Horobin, Simon, and Linne R. Mooney. "Identification of the Scribes Responsible for Copying Major Works of Middle English Literature." www.medievalscribes.com.
Iser, Wolfgang. "The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach." New Literary History 3 (1972): 279-299.
--. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.
Jauss, Hans Robert. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, trans. Timothy Bahti. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982.
Jefferson, J. A. "The Hoccleve Holographs and Thomas Hoccleve's Metrical Practice: More Than Counting Syllables? Medieval English Measures: Studies in Metre and Versification." Parergon 18:1 (2000): 203-226.
Kamath, Stephanie A. Viereck Gibbs, Allegory and First-Person Authorship in Late Medieval France and England. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell & Brewer, 2012.
Kane, George. Piers Plowman: The A Version: Will's Vision of Piers Plowman and Do-Well: An Edition in the Form of Trinity College Cambridge MS. R.3.14. London: University of London, Athlone Press, 1960.
Kerby-Fulton, Kathryn. "Langland 'in His Working Clothes'?: Scribe D, Authorial Loose Revision Material, and the Nature of Scribal Intervention." In Middle English Poetry: Texts and Traditions: Essays in Honour of Derek Pearsall, ed. A. J. Minnis. York, UK: York Medieval Press, 1996, 139-167.
--. "Professional Readers of Langland at Home and Abroad: New Directions in Political and Bureaucratic Codicology of Piers Plowman" In New Directions in Later Medieval Manuscript Studies: Essays from the 1998 Harvard Conference, ed. Derek Pearsall, York, UK: York Medieval Press, 2000, 103-129.
Kerby-Fulton, Kathryn, and Denise L. Despres. Iconography and the Professional Reader: The Politics of Book Production in the Douce Piers Plowman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999.
Kerby-Fulton, Kathryn, and Maidie Hilmo, eds. The Medieval Professional Reader at Work: Evidence from Manuscripts of Chaucer, Langland, Kempe and Gower. Victoria, BC: ELS, 2001.
Kerby-Fulton, Kathryn, and Maidie Hilmo, The Medieval Reader: Reception and Cultural History in the Late Medieval Manuscript, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 3rd series 1 (old series 26, new series 16) (New York: AMS Press, 2001).
Knapp, Ethan. The Bureaucratic Muse: Thomas Hoccleve and the Literature of Late Medieval England. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001.
Lerer, Seth. Chaucer and His Readers: Imagining the Author in Late Medieval England. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Macaulay, G. C., ed. The English Works of John Gower. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner for the Early English Text Society, 1900.
Mooney, Linne. "Chaucers Scribe." Speculum 81 (2006): 97-138.
--. "Some New Light on Thomas Hoccleve." Studies in the Age of Chaucer 29 (2007): 293-340.
--. "A Holograph Copy of Thomas Hoccleve's Regiment of Princes." Studies in the Ages of Chaucer 33 (2011): 263-296.
Parkes, M. B. "The Influence of the Concepts of Ordinatio and Compilatio on the Development of the Book." In Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays Presented to Richard William Hunt, ed. J. J. G. Alexander, M. T. Gibson, and R. W. Southern. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976, 115-141.
--. Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Aldershot, UK: Scolar Press, 1992.
Pearsall, Derek. "Hoccleve's Regement of Princes: The Poetics of Royal Self-Representation." Speculum 69:2 (1994): 386-410.
Perkins, Nicholas. "Haunted Hoccleve? The Regiment of Princes, the Troilean Intertext, and Conversations with the Dead." Chaucer Review 43:2 (2008): 103-139.
--. Hoccleve's Regiment of Princes: Counsel and Constraint. Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 2001.
Reiter, Eric H. "The Reader as Author of the User-Produced Manuscript: Reading and Rewriting Popular Latin Theology in the Late Middle Ages." Viator 27(1996): 151-169.
Schultz, H. C. "Thomas Hoccleve, Scribe." Speculum 12:1 (1937): 71-81.
Scott, Kathleen L. "Limning and Book-Producing Terms and Signs in situ in Late-Medieval English Manuscripts: A First Listing." In New Science out of Old Books: Studies in Manuscript and Early Printed Books in Honour of A. I. Doyle, ed. Richard Beadle and A. J. Piper. Aldershot, UK: Scolar Press, 1995, 142-188.
Strohm, Paul. "Hoccleve, Lydgate and the Lancastrian Court." In The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature, ed. David Wallace. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Tambling, Jeremy. "Allegory and the Madness of the Text: Hoccleve's Complaint." New Medieval Literatures 6 (2003): 223-248.
Thompson, John J. "A Poet's Contacts with the Great and the Good: Further Consideration of Thomas Hoccleve's Texts and Manuscripts." In Prestige, Authority and Power in Late Medieval Manuscripts and Texts (York Manuscripts Conference), ed. Felicity Riddy, 77-101. Woodbridge, UK, and Rochester, NY: York Medieval Press, 2000.
Tolmie, Sarah. "The Prive Scilence of Thomas Hoccleve." Studies in the Ages of Chaucer 22 (2000): 281-309.
Watt, David. "'I This Book Shal Make': Thomas Hoccleve's Self-Publication and Book Production." Leeds Studies in English 34 (2003): 133-160.
Windeatt, B. A. "The Scribes as Chaucer's Early Critics." Studies in the Age of Chaucer 1 (1979): 119-141.
(1.) For Hoccleve as a political poet, see, e.g., Paul Strohm, "Hoccleve, Lydgate and the Lancastrian Court," in The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature, ed. David Wallace (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Derek Pearsall, "Hoccleve's Regement of Princes: The Poetics of Royal Self-Representation," Speculum 69:2 (1994): 386-410; and Nicholas Perkins, Hoccleve's Regiment of Princes: Counsel and Constraint (Cambridge, UK: D.S. Brewer, 2001). For Hoccleve as a bureaucrat, see Ethan Knapp, The Bureaucratic Muse: Thomas Hoccleve and the Literature of Late Medieval England (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001). On Hoccleve's psychological condition, see Lillian Feder, Madness in Literature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980); and Gordon Claridge, Ruth Pryor, and Gwen Watkins, Sounds from the Bell Jar: Ten Psychotic Authors (Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 1990). For the relationship between Hoccleve's clerical role and insanity and his use of dialogue, see Jeremy Tambling, "Allegory and the Madness of the Text: Hoccleve's Complaint," New Medieval Literatures 6 (2003): 223-248; and Sarah Tolmie, "The Prive Scilence of Thomas Hoccleve," Studies in the Ages of Chaucer 22 (2000): 281-309.
(2.) Reproduced in J. A. Burrow and A. I. Doyle, eds., Thomas Hoccleve: A Facsimile of the Autograph Verse Manuscripts: Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino (California), MSS HM 111 and HM 744, Durham (England), MS Cosin V. III. 9 (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the Early English Text Society, 2002). These manuscripts contain copies of Hoccleve's minor poems. Linne Mooney suggests that London, British Library MS Royal 17.D.xviii (Ry3), a copy of The Regiment of Princes, is in Hoccleve's hand: Linne Mooney, "A Holograph Copy of Thomas Hoccleve's Regiment of Princes," Studies in the Ages of Chaucer 23 (2011): 263-296. Thus this article examines chiefly the minor poems but also makes comparisons to copies of The Regiment of Princes. There is some scholarship on other autograph collections, such as those manuscripts produced by Charles d'Orleans: see, e.g., Mary-Jo Arn, The Poet's Notebook: The Personal Manuscript of Charles d'Orleans (Paris, BnF MSfr. 25458) (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2009).
(3.) J. M. Bowers has studied the autograph manuscripts together in order to hypothesize on Hoccleve's intentions for creating an anthology of his work: J. M. Bowers, "Hoccleve's Huntington Holographs: the First 'Collected Poems' in English," Fifteenth-Century Studies 15 (1989): 27-51. Burrow and Doyle find his conclusions unsound: Burrow and Doyle, Thomas Hoccleve, xxvii-xxviii.
(4.) The non-autograph manuscripts examined here are: Minor Poems: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Selden Supra 53 (S); Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 221 (B); Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 735 (L); Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 185 (D2); Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Eng. Poet.d.4. (E); Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Dugdale 45 (Dug); Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Arch Selden B.24 (S2); Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Fairfax 16 (F); Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 638 (B2); Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 181 (D1); Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Tanner 346 (T). Regiment of Princes: British Library MS Arundel 38 (A); British Library MS Harley 4866 (Ha4); British Library MS Royal 17.D.vi (Ry2); British Library MS Royal 17.D.xix (Ry4); British Library MS Sloane 1212 (Sl1); British Library MS Sloane 1825 (S12); British Library MS Additional 18632 (Ad); Cambridge University Library MS Kk.i.3 pt. 11 (Kk); St. John's College, Cambridge, MS 1.22 (formerly James 223) (Sj); Magdalene College, Cambridge, MS Pepys 2101 (Ma); Trinity College, Cambridge, MS R.3.22 (formerly 602) (Tc); Queens College, Cambridge, MS 24 (formerly 12) (Qu); Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 496 (Cc); National Library of Scotland, Advocates MS 19.I.II, pt.3 (Na); University of Edinburgh MS 202 (Ed); Bodleian Library MS Ashmole 40 (As); Bodleian Library MS Douce 158 (Do); Bodleian Library MS Rawlinson Poet. 10 (Ral); Bodleian Library MS Rawlinson Poet. 168 (Ra2); Huntington Library MS E1.26.A. 13 (Hnl); Huntington Library MS HM 135 (formerly Phillipps 8980) (Hn2); Princeton University MS Garrett 137 (Ga). Further references to these manuscripts will be by their sigla.
(5.) Geoffrey Chaucer, "Chaucer's Words unto Adam, His Own Scriveyn," in The Riverside Chaucer, ed. Larry D. Benson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 1.7.
(6.) There are, for instance, the numerous marks left in manuscripts for decorators to complete the paraphs, initials, and borders. Some of these are discussed in Kathleen L. Scott, "Limning and Book-Producing Terms and Signs in situ in Late-Medieval English Manuscripts: A First Listing," in New Science out of Old Books: Studies in Manuscript and Early Printed Books in Honour of A. I. Doyle, ed. Richard Beadle and A. J. Piper (Aldershot, UK: Scolar Press, 1995), 142-188, esp. 143.
(7.) It is important to note that we do not fully know the relationship between the autograph manuscripts and the other copies of Hocdeve's texts. It is unclear whether Hoccleve oversaw the production of the deluxe copies of The Regiment of Princes in the way that Macaulay and Fisher suggest of Gower, or whether Hoccleve's autograph manuscripts were used as copy-texts; see, e.g., G. C. Macaulay, ed., The English Works of John Gower (London: Kegan Paul, Trench Trubner & Co., Ltd. for the Early English Text Society, 1900), I:clxvii; John Fisher, John Gower: Moral Philosopher and Friend of Chaucer (London: Methuen, 1965), 66, 92, 116-117, 124-127, 303-306. It is thought (but not satisfactorily demonstrated) that British Library MSS Arundel 38 and Harley 4866 may have been copied from an autograph copy of The Regiment of Princes. See, e.g., the entry in the British Library "Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts," available at http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID =8782&CollID=20&NStart=38 and http://www.bl.uk/ catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID =8778&CollID=8&NStart=4866. Ellis and Burrow argue that the extant non-autograph manuscripts are copied from lost authorial copies of Hoccleve's texts but not the three autograph manuscripts discussed here; Thomas Hoccleve, "My Compleinte" and Other Poems, ed. Roger Ellis (Exeter, UK: Exeter University Press, 2001), 10-12, 19-28; and J. A. Burrow ed., Thomas Hoccleve's Complaint and Dialogue (Oxford: Early English Texts Society, 1999), xviii-xxviii. The non-autograph manuscripts are not necessarily direct representations of Hoccleve's manuscripts, but rather, in comparison to the autograph manuscripts, offer interpretations of and responses to Hoccleve's texts and to Hoccleve's literary form.
(8.) See Linne Mooney, "Some New Light on Thomas Hoccleve," Studies in the Age of Chaucer 29 (2007): 293-340, App. B, for a full list of these. See also British Library, Additional MS 24062, the Formulary (a working book for younger Privy Seal scribes).
(9.) A. I. Doyle and M. B. Parkes, "The Production of Copies of The Canterbury Tales and the Confessio Amantis in the Early Fifteenth Century," in Medieval Scribes, Manuscripts and Libraries: Essays Presented to N. R. Ker, ed. M. B. Parkes and Andrew G. Watson (London: Scolar Press, 1978), 163-210,198.
(10.) Burrow, Thomas Hoccleve's Complaint, 111-118. See also J. M. Bowers, "Hoccleve's Two Copies of Lerne to Dye: Implications for Textual Critics," Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 83 (1989): 437-472. There are, however, many differences between the layouts of these two copies.
(11.) As will be discussed in the second half of this article.
(12.) Stephanie A. Viereck Gibbs Kamath, Allegory and First-Person Authorship in Late Medieval France and England (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell & Brewer, 2012), 129 n. 64.
(13.) The manuscripts of Troilus and Criseyde examined here are: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 61; Cambridge, Cambridge University Library MS Gg.4.27; New York, Pierpont Morgan MS 817; London, British Library, MS Harley 2280; London, British Library, MS Harley 3943; San Marino, Huntington Library MS HM114; and the slightly later Rawlinson Poet MS 163.
(14.) See Bowers, "Hoccleve's Two Copies of Lerne to Dye,"; and John J. Thompson, "A Poet's Contacts with the Great and the Good: Further Consideration of Thomas Hoccleve's Texts and Manuscripts," in Prestige, Authority and Power in Late Medieval Manuscripts and Texts (York Manuscripts Conference), ed. Felicity Riddy (Woodbridge, UK, and Rochester, NY: York Medieval Press, 2000), 77-101, esp. 85-86. See also David Watt, "'I This Book Shal Make': Thomas Hoccleve's Self-Publication and Book Production," Leeds Studies in English 34 (2003): 133-160.
(15.) The little existing scholarship on Hoccleve's form concentrates on meter and syllable count; the larger stanzaic unit is yet to be considered. See Thomas Hoccleve, Hoccleves Works: The Minor Poems I, ed. F. J. Furnivall, EETS 61 (1892), reissued with The Minor Poems II ed. I. Gollancz, EETS ES 73 (1897), in one volume, revised by Jerome Mitchell and A. I. Doyle (1970), xli; and J. A. Jefferson, "The Hoccleve Holographs and Thomas Hoccleve's Metrical Practice: More Than Counting Syllables? Medieval English Measures: Studies in Metre and Versification," Parergon 18:1 (2000): 203-226,217 and 219.
(16.) This is discussed in brief but as a means of scribal and workshop identification, in C. A. Chavannes-Mazel, "The Expansion of Rubrics for the Sake of the Layout: Mise-en-Page as Evidence for a Particular Workshop?" in Medieval Book Production: Assessing the Evidence: Proceedings of the Second Conference of the Seminar in the History of the Book to 1S00, Oxford, July 1988, ed. L. L. Brownrigg (Los Altos Hills, CA: Anderson-Lovelace, 1990), 117-131.
(17.) Ardis Butterfield, "Mise-en-Page in the Troilus Manuscripts: Chaucer and French Manuscript Culture," Huntington Library Quarterly 58 (1995): 49-80, esp. 61-75.
(18.) Nicholas Perkins, "Haunted Hoccleve? The Regiment of Princes, the Troilean Intertext, and Conversations with the Dead," Chaucer Review 43:2 (2008): 103-139,104.
(19.) The Troilus manuscripts also mark song, letter, and book divisions as well as stanzas, though this is not seen in Hoccleve manuscripts. See Butterfield, "Mise-en-Page."
(20.) Ralph Hanna, "The Manuscripts and Transmission of Chaucer's Troilus," Pursuing History: Middle English Manuscripts and their Texts (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), 115-129..
(21.) Simon Horobin and Linne R. Mooney, "Identification of the Scribes Responsible for Copying Major Works of Middle English Literature," available at www.medievalscribes.com; Linne Mooney and Estelle Stubbs, Scribes and the City: London Guildhall Clerks and the Dissemination of Middle English Literature, 1375-1425 (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2013). See also: Linne Mooney, "Chaucer's Scribe," Speculum 81 (2006): 97-138; Simon Horobin, "The Edmund-Fremund Scribe Copying Chaucer," JEBS 12 (2009): 195203; H. C. Schultz, "Thomas Hoccleve, Scribe," Speculum 12:1 (1937): 71-81,75-76; Seth Lerer, Chaucer and His Readers: Imagining the Author in Late Medieval England (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 4 ff.
(22.) George Kane, Piers Plowman: The A Version: Will's Vision of Piers Plowman and Do-Well: An Edition in the Form of Trinity College Cambridge MS. R.3.14 (London: University of London, Athlone Press, 1960), 116 and 128, see also 116 n.3. More recently, see B. A. Windeatt, "The Scribes as Chaucer's Early Critics," Studies in the Age of Chaucer 1 (1979): 119-141, esp. 120,122; Eric H. Reiter, "The Reader as Author of the User-Produced Manuscript: Reading and Rewriting Popular Latin Theology in the Late Middle Ages," Viator 27 (1996): 151-169, 154, arguing that books are "artifacts of the reading process"; Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), 107, whose argument on reading as a "dynamic interaction between text and reader," is applicable to the scribal process of reading and rewriting; Wolfgang Iser, "The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach," New Literary History 3 (1972): 279-299; Hans Robert Jauss, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, trans. Timothy Bahti (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), esp. 3-45. This is most extensively discussed by Kathryn Kerby-Fulton in Kathryn Kerby-Fulton and Maidie Hilmo, eds., The Medieval Professional Reader at Work: Evidence from Manuscripts of Chaucer, Langland, Kempe and Gower (Victoria, BC: ELS, 2001), esp. 8; Kathryn Kerby-Fulton, "Langland 'in His Working Clothes'?: Scribe D, Authorial Loose Revision Material, and the Nature of Scribal Intervention," in Middle English Poetry: Texts and Traditions: Essays in Honour of Derek Pearsall, ed. A. J. Minnis (York, UK: York Medieval Press, 1996), 139-167; Kathryn Kerby-Fulton and Denise L. Despres, Iconography and the Professional Reader: The Politics of Book Production in the Douce Piers Plowman (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999); Kathryn Kerby-Fulton, "Professional Readers of Langland at Home and Abroad: New Directions in Political and Bureaucratic Codicology of Piers Plowman" in New Directions in Later Medieval Manuscript Studies: Essays from the 1998 Harvard Conference, ed. Derek Pearsall (York: York Medieval Press, 2000), 103-129 103-129; Kathryn Kerby-Fulton and Maidie Hilmo, The Medieval Reader: Reception and Cultural History in the Late Medieval Manuscript, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 3rd ser.1 (old ser. 26, new ser. 16) (New York: AMS Press, 2001).
(23.) However, this is not maintained, possibly due to the effort required to do so.
(24.) Charles R. Blyth, ed., Thomas Hoccleve: The Regiment of Princes, TEAMS Middle English Texts (Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, 1999), available at http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/hoccfrm.htm
(25.) Mooney believes this is in Hoccleve's hand, see "A Holograph Copy of Thomas Hoccleve's Regiment of Princes."
(26.) Translation taken from the TEAMS edition. As the editors note, this is not in fact in Augustine, but in Petrus Comestor.
(27.) Translation taken from the TEAMS edition.
(28.) Blyth, Thomas Hoccleve, note to lines 126-127. http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/hoccfrm.htm., note to lines 126-27.
(29.) M. B. Parkes, Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Aldershot, UK: Scolar Press, 1992), 23; and M. B. Parkes, "The Influence of the Concepts of Ordinatio and Compilatio on the Development of the Book," in Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays Presented to Richard William Hunt, ed. J. J. G. Alexander, M. T. Gibson, and R. W. Southern (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 115-141.
(30.) Parkes, Pause and Effect, 121-135.
(31.) Kerby-Fulton, Iconography, p. 1 and The Medieval Professional Reader at Work, 8 ff.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The Journal of the Early Book Society for the Study of Manuscripts and Printing History|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2013|
|Previous Article:||The four scribes of MS Harley 2253.|
|Next Article:||Marketing the shrine: printed pilgrimage souvenirs, guides, and advertising.|