B. Material and Size

The eight parts of the codex include manuscripts of both paper and vellum, with Part IV being paper measuring approximately 21.5cm. x 16cm.

The entire codex is comprised of 558 pages, 279 folios. A brief description of each of the eight parts is given below to illustrate the diversity of this anthology:

Part IV, containing Robert of Sicily, consists of a single quire of 20 leaves or 40 pages. The reader will observe that 4 pages are missing in the foliation. This discrepancy in numbering is accounted for by the fact that the versos of pp. 473, 474, 477, and 478 were not counted. Nevertheless, as John Thompson remarks in a note appended to the catalogue in 1981, the description of the quire of 20 leaves is correct despite the errors in pagination.

Because of the variation in the dating, hands, decoration, contents, and condition of each of the volume's eight parts, a full description of the entire codex is beyond the scope of this project. Therefore, the description that follows will focus only on Part IV which contains Robert of Sicily and, where appropriate, will consider its particular characteristics in light of the context of the codex as a whole.

In contrast to the other sections, Part IV appears to be very shabby. Pages at both ends of the quire-booklet are darkened and somewhat tattered around the edges but are not greatly discolored or stained. These signs of wear are evidence that the booklet may have circulated independently for a time, but not long enough to allow significant damage to its outer leaves.

(b) Decoration and Rubrication

There is no evidence of decoration, either planned or implemented. Attempts at rubrication, most always in red ink, are at best amateurish and are limited to an occasional 2-3 line initial, strokes on the initial letters of verse, or red ticking to mark stanzas. Red brackets consistently link the couplets of Robert of Sicily. With respect to decoration and rubrication, Part IV stands in marked contrast to the carefully rendered scientific drawings of other sections and to the gold highlights of Part VI, presumed to be a presentation copy.

(c) Number of scribes

Part IV is written in one hand, probably that of the scribe who identifies himself on p. 455: "quod ffysshar. Explicit expliciat [sic] ludere scriptor eat." He also inscribed his name in the margins of pp. 458, and 459 as "ffysher" and "ffyschar" respectively and on pp. 483 and 485.

(d) Palaeographical Features

Guddat-Figge generously classifies the hand that James describes as "very badly written" as "very current, informal Secretary." Indeed, in contrast to the rest of the codex, the script stands out as being exceptionally poor. Broad, heavy downstrokes not only create a distracting effect in the manuscript's overall appearance, but also obscure adjacent letter-forms making them difficult to decipher. The inking of forms is also irregular, and legibility is further hindered by blotting. As further evidence of haste and/ or carelessness, the scribe makes two lines of correction in brown only to cross them out with red on p. 477.

Palaeographical features are relevant to the extent that they illustrate an informal almost carelessly rendered cursive hand:

(e) Layout and Presentation of Text

There is no evidence of pricking or ruling. The unmarked margins measure approximately 1.5cm. top; 4.5cm. bottom; 3cm. inner; and 3-4.5cm. outer. Text is scribed in single columns ranging from 30 - 38 lines in length.

(f) Marginalia

The scribe inserts a marginal correction in brown touched with red on p. 476. With the exception of scribal identification in the margins, marginalia in Part IV is largely limited to doodling or pen trials:

These do not appear to be catchwords, but are indeed related to the theme of the given text. One significant departure from such thematic notes is the name [Sproxton] inscribed in the bottom margin of p. 460. Interestingly, this is the name of the current librarian of Gonville and Caius who claims that it is a Chesire name.

Due to the broad range of this codex, whether we are referring to the nature and language of the contents or the three to four century span of its composition and compilation, the complexities of provenance are compounded. It is altogether possible that Part IV has a different provenance from the other manuscript-booklets that comprise the codex. Unfortunately, the dating of Part IV in the latter half of the fifteenth-century excludes it from the Linguistic Atlas. A dialect analysis drawing from the relatively brief sample offered by Robert of Sicily does not substantially narrow the field of possibilities: the forms surveyed reflect neither northern nor southern characteristics, but span across the midlands with concentrations appearing in both the east and west--the former represented by the counties of Cambridge, Leicester, Bedford, Northampton, and Lincoln (south); the latter, by the counties Gloucester, Hereford, and Worcester.

Part IV is a miscellany of religious and devotional works whose relatively simple texts and Latin tags suggest readings that Guddat-Figge ascertains to have been appropriate for a"less well educated" middle class audience, perhaps women (44). While her assertion admittedly speaks to the immediate context of Robert of Sicily in Part IV, it certainly does not hold true for the other parts of the codex that include works in Latin and French. Considering the nature and presentation of the scientific prose treatises in Parts I - III, we must assume a more highly educated readership. The letters appended to the volume attest to the political interest if not the political power of the volume's later readers or owners. When classifying a codex such as Gonville & Caius 174/95, it is important to distinguish features of its immediate context from those of the codex-anthology. In the present case, the disparity between the contents and presentation of Part IV and other parts of the codex requires that we limit conclusions to Part IV and qualify generalizations about the codex.

For example, in contrast to other parts of Gonville & Caius 174/95, the informal, amateur quality of Part IV, the heterogeneous nature of its contents, and the unsystematic manner of its compilation appear to satisfy the basic criteria for a commonplace book. This classification is reinforced when we consider that Part IV shares two items (Lydgate's On kissing stones... and Lychefelde's Complaint ) with the distinctive commonplace book of Richard Hill, Balliol 354, from the early sixteenth century. But while this assessment appears valid for part IV, it does not apply in all cases to other individual parts or, necessarily, to the codex as a whole.

What we appear to have with Gonville & Caius 174/95 is a collection that represents later, more idiosyncratic practices of compilatio responsive to the particular needs and tastes of an owner-collector. Like CUL Ff. 2. 38 with which it shares the Lychefelde Complaint, Gonville & Caius 174/95 was assembled from booklets which may or may not have circulated independently before being bound together in one codex. Of all the parts comprising this codex, only Part IV, the religious miscellany containing Robert of Sicily, appears likely to have enjoyed any degree of prior circulation. The remaining booklets appear to have been collected to fulfill educational and archival needs. The presentation copy of the Lamentations svr l'estat miserable de la France affligee suggests that the volume was intended primarily to preserve items of historical value. It is reasonable to infer that the patrons and readers of Part IV were of the literate middle class while those of the extant anthology Gonville & Caius 174/95, represents a more educated (see H below) and more highly placed circle of readers.

Part IV, the self-contained religious miscellany, contains the following works:

The codex was in the collection of William Moore, who was admitted to Gonville and Caius in 1606 and took his MA in 1613. A long association with the College and University culminated in his becoming University librarian in 1653. This volume was presented to Gonville and Caius College in 1659, the year of his death. As a university librarian, Moore would have had knowledge of and access to the wide range of texts represented in this anthology and quite conceivably may have supervised its compilation and subsequent binding with a future college audience in mind.

About the provenance or earlier history of the manuscript, however, nothing is known. Historical research based on the later additions to the volume is one place to start. Linguistic analysis of all the English items may help narrow the field.

For notices and descriptions regarding Gonville & Caius Cambridge MS 174/95 consult the following:

Guddat-Figge, Catalogue MSS ME Romances, 81-2.

M. R. James, Catalogue MSS Gonville & Caius, I: 196 - 199.

Register, I: 204.

J. Smith, Catalogue MSS Gonville & Caius, 86 - 89.