Note: The description given below is a summary based on the recently published facsimile edition of the Vernon MS. The reader is referred to A. I. Doyle's detailed description and analysis in the Introduction and to the fold-out pages at the end of the facsimile that illustrate the manuscript's structure with respect to text and decoration.

Based on several historical allusions in the texts, namely the lyrics moralizing the earthquake of 1382 that appear on f. 411r col.b, the MS has been dated c. 1390.

The MS weighs approximately 22 kg., its vellum leaves measuring 54.4cm. x 39.3cm. Prior to trimming, each bifolium is estimated to have measured 55cm. x 80cm., the size of a small calf-skin. ¹

The MS retains 350 out of an estimated 422 or 426 leaves in its complete state. A preliminary quire from f. iiiv to f. viiir is assigned the letters a - k. This quire contains the contents list or index and presumably would have been written after all of the contents had been copied, although according to J.A. Herbert only a "very little later" in the early fifteenth century. ² Contemporary foliation in red Roman numerals appears on the versos of f. 1 through f. 313, and from f. 319 through f. 402 after which the foliation is modern. ³ There appear to be a total of 53 quires generally gathered into quaternions--with the exception of quire 17 and the final quire, both of which contain 6 leaves (Doyle 2, 5). Unlike the Simeon, the loss of leaves does not appear to pose as much of a problem in understanding the compilation of the codex as do the problems of handling that have resulted in the mis-gathering, mis-foliation, incorrect listing, and occasional omission of quires that have been foliated and listed. Doyle (2) cites, for example, the loss of quires 18-22 after having been foliated and listed; the misfoliation of f. 273 and 276 in quire 36; the omission of quire 41 (ff. 311-19) from foliation and listing; and the mis-gathering, mis-foliation and incorrect listing of ff. 337-40 and ff. 369-72. The final quire is neither foliated nor listed in the table of contents, suggesting that its addition was an afterthought. The vagaries of foliation have complicated efforts to list the manuscript's contents accurately. The reader is referred to the fold-out section at the end of the facsimile edition for an illustrative description of the manuscript's structure. ⁴ The codex is extant in five separable but unequal parts with structural and content divisions seldom corresponding. Doyle takes this and the fact that the contents list does not include the final items as evidence that copying was not done in the order the volume is now bound (2). Signatures are visible as letters above roman numerals on the recto of leaves in parts I, II, and the beginning of III. Doyle speculates that quires 18-22, ff. 127-66, must have been lost after having been foliated and listed in the contents, but before being bound in the boards. The signatures become quite confusing in the latter sections of part III in the Prick of Conscience, raising the question of whether or not signatures intended for a corresponding sequence in the Simeon MS were inscribed in the Vernon instead. Parts IV and V bear only bifolium signatures. In seeking to account for these inter-related discrepancies among foliation, content-listing and signature-sequence, Doyle posits several scenarios for manuscript production, but concludes only that catchwords and a more consistent foliation rather than signatures guided the assembly of gatherings before binding (5).

(a) General condition

Despite the loss of leaves, the MS is reported to be in generally good condition with neat patches mending most flaws. The medieval boards in which the MS is bound appear to have suffered more from handling than the vellum leaves which have collected dirt but remain intact.

(b) Decoration and rubrication

The Vernon MS is noted for its decoration, illumination, and illustration. A hierarchical pattern of decoration from paraphs and one-line initials to elaborate historiated and illuminated eight-line initials is maintained throughout, with the scribes apparently granted liberty to adapt the overall design in order to accommodate a given exemplar. Two characteristic features of Vernon illumination include the vine-like marginal extensions called "vinets" and an unusual border illumination described as "tally-like." For a complete description of these features, a discussion of the various regional motifs exhibited in the Vernon, and the numerous types of illumination employed, the reader is referred to Dr. Kathleen Scott's comments in the introduction to the facsimile and to the structural table at the end that includes corresponding types of illumination. All but one-line initials, paraphs, and line fillers are illuminated. Illustration in the Vernon is largely confined to the beginning of Part II and to four texts, two of which are illustrated with numerous miniatures. Doyle accounts for the fact that illustration was limited to so few works by noting that the exemplars for these works were also extensively illustrated (6-10). In contrast to the execution of decoration, illumination , and illustration, the rubrication of the Vernon MS appears remarkably inconsistent, perhaps precisely because quires were being passed about among various artisans.

The hierarchical scheme decorative rubrication extends to Robert of Sicily .

Whereas the title is simply treated as two lines of verse following the preceding work without skipping a line, the five-line initial P that begins the text is decorated with vinets that expand into an elaborate border decoration extending almost the full length of the folio. Succeeding initials ( at ll. 281, 365, and 416) are neither so large nor as decorated, but five majuscule Ê's (at ll. 141, 207, 233. 251, and 383) extend eight lines and are significant in that they always introduce the same phrase: "†e Angel." The poem is marked by 12 paraphs at irregular intervals. Doyle seems to suggest that the paraph is a form of decorative punctuation, intended to mark pronounced pauses--more pronounced than that signalled by habitual use of the punctus (5).

(c) Number of Scribes

Note: The scribes of both the Vernon and Simeon MSS will be identified as A and B to conform to Doyle's designation.

With the exception of the first quire, the Vernon MS was copied in one hand designated as scribe B, the scribe who also copied substantial portions of the Simeon MS. Scribe A, so designated because of the order of his appearance in the manuscript, actually appears to have been enlisted only for the finishing stages of production: other than providing the text and rubrics of the first quire, he inserts rubrics at various points in the manuscript, appears responsible for most of the foliation, and provides the contents list. All of these tasks would necessarily have been carried out after various stages of the copying were completed (Doyle 5). Unlike the scribes of the Simeon MS whose alternating stints suggest some degree of collaboration, the Vernon scribes appear to have worked independently of each other.

(d) Palaeographical features

Both hands have been identified as Anglicana Formata, but Doyle distinguishes scribe B's hand as having been formed by the middle of the fourteenth-century, whereas scribe A exhibits features of early fifteenth-century script (12-13). The most distinctive feature of Scribe B's hand overall is the remarkable uniformity in the size, spacing, and shaping of its letter-forms, so controlled that it achieves print-like quality. The thin duct enables the controlled calligraphic inscription of this small, compact cursive script.

The letter-forms do not deviate from the standard cursive Anglicana: [r] takes the form of the long-tailed and the 2-shaped versions, the shoulder of the former forming the ligature, and the short descender of the latter often dropped off or so faint that it appears to do so. Both the long and short [s] are employed with the short form often closed to form a double-compartment [s]. The open medial [e] assumes a distinctive elevated form in the terminal position: a minute pair of oblique strokes that resembles an abbreviation more than a letter-form. The descender of [†] is usually curved toward the left, and it is easy to confuse [y] and [†] if the lobe of the latter is not closed. The descender of [y] is often omitted. The scribe dots [i] with a hairline stroke but does so inconsistently. The majuscule [I] is distinguished not only by its size but also by a left shoulder-stroke. Scribe B uses the medial punctus, often elevated, with consistency; the terminal punctus, less regularly. The practice of using the punctus suggests that Robert of Sicily, like many items in the Vernon MS, was read aloud. The size of the codex also supports this assumption.

While Scribe B's hand has not been identified in any other manuscripts than the Vernon and the Simeon, scribe A's hand appears in the chronicle and cartulary of the Cistercian abbey of Stoneleigh in Warwickshire in 1392, 1393, 1407 and 1411. Doyle has also identified his hand in two views of a frankpledge dated October, 1406, and May, 1407, for Radway, a manor further south that belonged to Stoneleigh. The preface of the cartulary bears significant implications for the production of the Vernon MS: the compiler of the cartulary, a retired abbot named Thomas Pype in writing to his successor at Stoneleigh, Thomas Halton, refers to Halton as having sent him (Pype) "your writer." Reference is also made to the handling and dispatch of an exemplar and copied text. From this brief mention, Doyle infers that scribe A, rather than being a monk, was a secular clerk or possibly a lay craftsperson enlisted as a copyist. But it is the appearance of this same hand in two copies of the Prick of Conscience that leads Doyle to conclude that scribe A is a professional circulating in and about the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield. Based on the Edinburgh survey of language and texts, the two manuscripts of Conscience--Trinity College Oxford 16B and Holkham Hall Norfolk 668--have been placed near Lichfield, and scribe A's Vernon stint, quire 1, localized in North Worcestershire (13). Scribe A, then, demonstrates that capacity for assimilating the dialectal traits of either exemplar or environment ( or both) that proves so confounding to scholars.

(e) Layout and presentation of text

The unusually large size of the leaves accounts for the pricking visible on the inner as well as the outer edges. Ruling is carefully done with brown plummet; columns, double for prose and triple for verse, are framed in inked lines. The pattern consistently rules 80 lines per column with a separate line generally allocated for catchwords on the verso of the last leaf of the quire. A pair of lines ruled vertically in the outer margin was apparently intended for sidenotes; however, such notation is usually penned in closer to the text (Doyle 2).

(f) Marginalia

With the exception of the more extensive note regarding copying discussed in section H. below, contemporary marginal notation tends to consist of an occasional "nota," "nota bene," or "narratio." Because of the care taken in copying, there are relatively few marginal corrections. Doyle identifies glosses on f. vir as a late fifteenth-century hand (11). The word "pope" is crossed out fairly consistently throughout the codex, but Robert of Sicily escaped this sixteenth-century revision.

Doyle credits scribe B with the remarkable linguistic uniformity exemplified in his transcriptions in both the Vernon and Simeon MSS, attributing his skill at assimilating the practices of his exemplars to a familiarity with a broad range of spelling variants. Scribal dialect is less accessible in texts copied by scribe A who seems to adapt more readily to the features of the exemplar (11). Sergeantson has placed the Vernon dialect in south Staffordshire or south Shropshire; the Edinburgh Middle English Dialect Project, in north Worcestershire; Sajavaara, in western Warwickshire. ⁵ We recall that texts copied by scribe A, see above, have been localized in a region encompassing north Worcestershire, Staffordshire, and Warwickshire.

The Vernon MS is a religious miscellany whose size suggests that it was used as a coucher or ledger book intended for public reading. The identity of this listening audience has been the subject of debate, with internal evidence (see below) tending to support the argument for a male religious community. The devotional contents, however, would appear to include rather than preclude female auditors.

Guddat-Figge notes that the Simeon and Vernon have 132 items in common (276). Sajavaara reminds us that of Vernon's contents, 9 items do not appear in the Simeon whereas 8 items in the Simeon are absent in the Vernon. ⁶ Guddat-Figge, who offers a concise listing of MS contents following Sergeantson's numbering system but retaining the divisions of the Index and Register, lists the five MS sections and corresponding contents as follows (270-75):

Robert of Sicily , item #342, appears in Part III in the same context in which the romance appears in the Simeon MS. ⁷ The collocation of items of related genre or interest is remarkable so that the items in closest proximity to Robert of Sicily --"A song of love-longing...," "A luytel tretys...," "A Mournyng song...," "A luytel sarmoun...," "A disputison," "Hou mon scholde here hys masse," and "†e guldene trental"--actually seem of a more miscellaneous nature than other groupings in the manuscript. As discussed with respect to the Simeon MS, Robert of Sicily accents a number of themes expressed individually and collectively in the volume's religious contents.

Based on the relatively early dating and the more complete state of the manuscript, editors of Middle English romance have generally privileged the Vernon text of Robert of Sicily. See discussion in Editions section below.

H. Summary and Interpretation

Not only did the copying and compilation of the Vernon and Simeon MSS require the collection and handling of an enormous number of exemplars, but the manuscript also bears evidence of its own use an exemplar. In the lower margin of the Simeon MS f. 38r in a contemporary hand is written: "Memorandum quod Johannes Scryveyn scribet domino Thome Heneley tres quarternos vel quatuor & tri folia Et incipit ad ista verba in isto columine O†ur dignite, or benefys." A similar but abbreviated note appears with the same text, the Speculum Vitae, [f. 239v] in the Vernon. Whereas Doyle explores the implications of the inscription for the handling and exchange of exemplars, H. E. Allen pursues the identity of scribe and patron, locating Thomas Hanley as prebendary of Lichfield Cathedral from 1389 - 1422 with intervening posts at Hereford Cathedral and the chapel of Tettenhall, Staffordshire. ⁸ It is difficult, however, to determine the extent, if any, of Hanley's involvement in the production of the two manuscripts. Miss Allen locates a John Scryvein in a number of Lichfield deeds and in other documents in the Staffordshire area that link him to London. The use of a professional surname frustrates attempts to come to any conclusion about his identity, and his hand is not linked definitely with other manuscripts. Their inconclusive nature nothwithstanding, these findings reinforce the linguistic provenance of the manuscript.

Internal evidence also supports the probability of a Cistercian origin. The South English Legendary includes a unique life of St. Bernard. A historiated initial in the Prick of Conscience depicts the figure of a male religious that in all likelihood is a Cistercian (Doyle 14). We are reminded, however, that scribe A appears to have been a secular cleric or lay professional who traveled about the region contracting his services as a copyist. We can presume that other artisans involved in the production of these massive volumes were similarly engaged for the project. While the Cistercians appear to have administered and housed the undertaking, the labor itself extended beyond the confines of the monastic community. The sheer scope of the project also suggests a more inclusive audience of auditors both lay and religious, perhaps women as well as men.

Notes on f. 413 provide satisfactory evidence that the MS was in the hands of a Walter Vernon of Houndhill, Staffordshire, prior to 1592, remaining in the family until it was donated to the Bodleian by Col. Edward Vernon in August, 1677 (Guddat-Figge 276).

For notices and descriptions concerning Bodleian MS Eng. Poet. a.1 consult the following:

1 A.I. Doyle, introd., Vernon MS: a facsimile of Bodleian Lib. Oxford MS Eng. poet. A1 (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1987) 1. Christopher Clarkson of the Conservation section of the Bodleian estimates the correspondence of the leaf-size to calf-skin.

2 M. Sergeantson, "The Index of the Vernon Manuscript," MLR 32(1937): 222.

3 Guddat-Figge 186.

4 Sergeantson’s Index, 222-61, represents an early comprehensive study of the Index and the manuscript’s contents; Guddat-Figge, 270-75, offers a concise "user-friendly" listing.

5 Doyle, Facsimile, 13. See also Sergeantson, 222,224-27. Cf. A. McIntosh et.al., Atlas : I: 148; Linguistic Profile 7630; III: 553; Grid 389 270; IV: 331-32 and Map 2 335. See also K. Sajavaara, ed., "The Middle English Translations of Robert Grosseteste’s Chateau d’Amour" Memoires de la Societe Neophilologique de Helsinki 32(1967): 120-21.

6 K. Sajavaara, "The Relationship of the Vernon and Simeon Manuscripts," Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 68 (1967): 434.

7 A.S.G. Edwards, "The Contexts of the Vernon Romances," Studies in the Vernon MS, ed. Derek Pearsall (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1990) 159-70.

8 Doyle, Facsimile 13n55. See also Hope Emily Allen, "Manuscripts of the Ancrene Riwle, To the Editor of the Times," Times Literary Supplement 8 Feb. 1936: 116.