« PoprzedniaDalej »
Now good soñ, y have shewed the / & brought þe in vre, to know be Curtesie of court / & these þow may take in cure, In pantry / botery / or cellere / & in kervynge a-fore a sovereyne
demewre, A sewer / or a mershalle : in þes science / y suppose ye byī sewre, Which in my dayes y lernyd withe a prynce fulle royalle, with whom vschere in chambur was y, & mershalle also in halle, vnto whom alle þese officeres foreseid / þey euer entende shalle, Evir to fulfille my commaundement when þat y to þem calle : For we may allow & dissalow / oure office is þe cheeff
In cellere & spicery / & the Cooke, be he loothe or leeff. (1. 1173-82.) Further on, at line 1211, he says,
“Moore of þis connynge y Cast not me to contreve : my tyme is not to tary, hit drawest fast to eve. pis tretyse pat y haue entitled, if it ye entende to preve, y assayed me self in youthe with-outeñ any greve. while y was yonge y-noughe & lusty in dede, y enioyed þese maters foreseid / & to lerne y toke good hede; but croked age hathe compelled me / & leue court y must nede.
þerfore, sone, assay thy self / & god shalle be þy spede.” And again, at line 1227,
“Now, good soñ, thy self, with other þat shalle þe succede, whiche þus boke of nurture shalle note / lerne, & ouer rede, pray for the sowle of Iohn Russelle, þat god do hym mede, Som tyme seruaunde with duke vmfrey, duch of Glowcetur in dede. For þat prynce pereles prayethe / & for suche other mo, þe sowle of my wife / my fadur and modir also, vn-to Mary modyr and mayd / she fende us from owre foe, and brynge vs alle to blis when we shalle hens goo.
As to his Boke, besides what is quoted above, John Russell says, Go forthe lytelle boke, and lowly pow me commende vnto alle yonge gentilmen / þat lust to lerne or entende, and specially to bem þat han exsperience, praynge þe[m] to amende and correcte þat is amysse, þere as y fawte or offende. And if so þat any be founde / as prouz myñ necligence, Cast þe cawse on my copy / rude / & bare of eloquence, whiche to drawe out I haue do my besy diligence, redily to reforme hit ) by reson and bettur sentence. As for ryme or resoñ, be forewryter was not to blame, For as he founde hit aforne hyrī, so wrote he pe same, and þaughe he or y in oure matere digres or degrade, blame neithur of vs / For we neuyre hit made ; 1 The duc has a red stroke through it, probably to cut it out.
Symple as y had insight / somwhat pe ryme y correcte; blame y cowde no mañ / y haue no persone suspecte. Now, good god, graunt vs grace / oure sowles neuer to Infecte ! þañ may we regne in þi regioun / eternally with thyne electe.
(1. 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', 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, 1. 8874 (ed. Morris, Philol. Soc.). Even Mr Tennyson makes believe that Everard Hall wrote his Morte ď 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?, 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
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.
2 For the Early English Text Society.
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 Inserts and omits as Sl. 1315 does,
about behaviour which it nearly but the wording is often different. repeats, where Russell puts it, at
1. 276, Symple Condicions. Omits Russell's stanza, l. 305-8, about
'these cuttid galauntes with their
codware.' Omits a stanza, 1. 319-24, p. 137. Contains this stanza (fol. 42, b.). Contracts R.'s chapter on Fumositees, Contracts the Fumositees too (fol. 45
and back). Omits R.’s Lenroy, under Fried Metes, Has one verse of Lenroy altered (fol. p. 149-50.
45 b.). Transfers R.'s chapters on Sewces on Transfers as Sl. 1315 does (see fol.
Fische Dayes and Sawcis for Fishe, 48).
6 19, p. 161. Gives different Soteltes (or Devices Differs from R., nearly as Sl. 1315
at the end of each course), and does.
does, p. 167-171. Winds up at the end of the Bathe or Has 3 winding-up stanzas, as if about
Steve, 1. 1000, p. 183, R., with two to end as Sloane 1315 does, but stanzas of peroration. As there is yet goes on (omitting the Bathe no Explicit, the MS. may be incom- Medicinable) with the Vssher and plete, but the next page is blank. Marshalle, R. p. 185, and ends sud
denly, at l. 1062, p. 188, 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 hyghe 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 Conilicions, 1. 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, Hippocrasmaker, 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 pennel it.—Reading it, we see “The Good Duke" rise and dress', 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
? I have put figures before the motions in the dress and undress drills, for they reminded me so of “ Manual and Platoon : by numbers."
table laid, his guests arranged, his viands carved, and his salt smoothed'; 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', beaver's tail, osprey, brewe, venprides, whale, swordfish, seal, torrentyne, pety perveis or perneis, and gravell of beef?. 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. 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
Mr Way says that the planere, 1. 58, is an article new to antiquarians.
2 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 II. Gibbs.
3“ It is nought all good to the goost that the gut asketh” we may well say with William who wrote Piers Plough mon, v. 1, p. 17, 1. 533-4, after reading the lists of things eatable, and dishes, in Russell's pages. The later feeds that Phylotheus l'hysiologus 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, Plumns, Currans, Apples, Capers, Olives, Anchovies, Mangoes, Careare, &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.”
4 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 Domestie Manners and Customs. Russell's description of the Franklin's dinner, 1. 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, 1. 77, as a whet to the appetite. Modus Cenandi serves potage first, and keeps the fruits, with the spices and biscuits, for dessert. Part II. p. 38, 1. 54.
* Monthly Observations for the preserving of Health, 1686, p. 20-1.