<Preliminary introduction>

The HOLLIS cataloguing may be found here. The Provenance in HOLLIS is the same as that in Baker. The following items are worth repeating:

“Description : [402] leaves ; 27 cm.

“Summary : Fifteenth century manuscript in three parts, beginning with an index from Assise to Vitallers of laws enacted from Edward I to 18 Henry VI. Followed by statutes from the reign of Edward III to Henry V, and statutes from 1-23 Henry VI.”

The cataloguing in Baker’s English Legal Manuscripts, 1, no. 96 reads as follows:

“STATUTA NOVA, 1 EDWARD III TO 23 HENRY VI

“MS. 163.

“C.xv, 402 ff., illum, initial and border, wooden boards. Preceded by an index from Assise to Vitallers.

“‘Turpyn’ in ornamental letters (C.xv); sold at S. 7 March 1939, no. 365, to Maggs; their catalogue 687 (1940), no. 174; bought from them, and received on 10 July 1940.”

Much of the HOLLIS description that is not in Baker is taken from the Maggs catalogue, the relevant extract from which is pasted onto the inside front cover. We are not confident that the statutes of Henry VI should be regarded as a separate part. The alphabetical index does not begin with Edward I, but with Henry III (see below). Also, the count of the number of folios in both Baker and HOLLIS is misleading.

The manuscript measures approximately 270 X 180 mm.

The manuscript is bound in boards, with the spine covered in leather extending over about a half of the outside of the boards but not extending into the inside. The Maggs catalogue says that the boards are ‘contemporary’ but that they have been ‘rebacked’. It would probably be safer to say that the style of the leather cover certainly looks much later than that of the boards. The front endpapers, which contain the ornamental ‘Turpyn’ could be contemporary with the boards. It is highly unlikely that they are contemporary with the leather cover.

The decorative program begins with the statute of 1 Edw. 3, a handsome initial with a floral design in the interior of the letter and a strap floreated border, in what looks like maroon and a lighter than normal blue and decorated with gold leaf. There are no other initials that are so elaborate, but most of the statutes up to end of Henry V have an initial capital with a geometric design in red and blue with penned scrollwork in the margin. The chapter numbers in the margins have red and blue paragraph marks as do the headers. The statutes of Henry VI have no decoration, although the first statute of the reign has a space for a decorated initial capital that was never put in. The same applies to the alphabetical index at the beginning of the manuscript: initial decorated capitals were planned but never put in.

At least two hands are at work. The statutes of Edward III are written in an English semi-cursive script, probably dating from the second half of the 14th century. Those of the Lancastrians are written in an English semi-cursive script that is typical of the first half of the 15th century. We are of two minds about the statutes of Richard II. The hand is definitely not that of the statues of Edward III. It could be that of the statutes of Lancastrians, but we are inclined to think that it may be a bit earlier.

The hand of the alphabetical index is definitely not that of the statutes of Edward III; it is considerably later. It is possible that the hand of the statutes of the Lancastrians, and that of the index are the same hand.

All of the main hands in the manuscript are professional. More analysis of them is definitely called for, but we believe that we have the basics.

There is no foliation that we have been able to find, either ancient or modern. The count of 402 in Baker and HOLLIS was apparently reached by staring with the first folio of the index (seq. 8) and continuing, presumably, until the blank folios at the back of the manuscript were reached. If that was the scheme, it is off by five; the number is actually 407. Although we considered foliating the manuscript digitally from front to back since all the folios are of considerable antiquity, we decided to begin where Baker and HOLLIS seem to have begun, with the first folio of the index. There is relatively little writing on the preceding folios, and they can be referred to by sequence number. There seemed to be no reason, however, not to continue the foliation to the last folios of the manuscript, particularly when we discovered (see below) that they are probably part of the final quire. That gave us a total of 409 numbered folios, with two unnumbered folios at the beginning.

Quiring this manuscript on the basis of the images is difficult. The signature marks are irregular and hard to read; we are not at all sure that all that we have listed in the Detailed Contents are, in fact, signature marks. The manuscript is large, and the images do not allow us to see very far into the gutters. On the basis of the quire breaks, the contents, and what signature marks that there are, we offer here a tentative quiring that will probably be upset when we have the opportunity to check it in situ.

The manuscript seems to be a mixture primarily of regular quaternions with occasional ternions, but the signature marks in the middle section (quires 30–36) suggest that those quires are somewhat irregular. Folios appear to be missing after fol. 235, 250, and 269, although there is no break in the text in any of those places. Taking what we saw as visible stubs in those places, we were able to construct quires. Doing so involved assuming that one of the quires was the only duernion and one the only sesternion. (The latter, of course, could be two ternions, but we had no evidence of a break in the middle.) The arithmetic works, though it is probably not the only arithmetical possibility. Doing that gave us the following tentative collation:

1² (seq. 4–7), 2–30⁸ (f. 1–232), 31⁴ (f. 233–235) (lacks 1 after f. 235), 32⁸ (f. 236–242) (lacks 1 before f. 236), 33⁸ (f. 243–250), 34⁸ (f. 251–257) (lacks 1 before f. 251), 35¹² (f. 258–269), 36⁸ (f. 270–276) (lacks 1 before f. 270), 37–39⁸ (f. 277–300), 40–41⁶ (f. 301–312), 42⁸ (f. 313–319) (lacks 1 after f. 313), 43⁸ (f. 320–326) (lacks 1 before f. 320), 44–50⁸ (f. 327–382), 51⁶ (f. 383–388), 52–53⁸ (f. 389–404), 54⁶ (f. 405–409, lacks one after f. 408).

As previously noted, there is no text missing where the stubs seem to appear after fol. 235, 250, and 269. Putting quire breaks there involves the assumption that in all three cases the scribe was working with quires that already lacked the initial folio, or that he made up the quire separately leaving the initial folio blank and then removed it when he joined it to the preceding quire. In the case of fol. 235, our quiring also assumes that at least one folio of the short quire 31 was blank and removed when the quires were joined or that it had already been lost when it was written. At least two stubs seem to be visible between fol. 235 and 236; there could be more.

There would also seem to be no missing text that resulted from the removal of the folio following fol. 408. What precedes and follows it is blank.

The loss of the folios following fol. 313 and 319 did result in the loss of text. Fol. 313v breaks off shortly after the beginning of c. 6 of 4 Hen. 5; fol. 314r begins in mid-sentence in the middle of c. 7. Fol. 319v ends in the middle of c. 9 (marked ‘8’) of 9 Hen. 5, stat. 2; fol. 320r begins in mid-sentence toward the end of c. 11.

As explained more fully immediately below, quires 12 and 13 in the alphabetical index were bound out of order. Thirteen should precede 12.

Throughout the index, though certainly not in all the entries, there are references that accompany the chapter numbers of the statutes to a ‘littera’ followed by a majuscule letter of the alphabet. These letter references appear both in the statutes that antedate 1 Edw. 3 and in those from 1 Edw. 3 forward. These letters do not appear in the statutes in this manuscript. They presumably refer to letters in a manuscript for which the index was originally compiled. They may refer to an already-existing index in that manuscript of which this one is an expansion. The abridgements that are so marked tend to be short. For example, the abridgement at the beginning of fol. 114v reads ‘[W]ast patet in magna carta littera G capitulo quarto’. The next entry has no reference other than the chapter number and gives the substance of the provision: ‘Weres. Omnes kedelli deponantur per Thamsiam et Medewaya’ et per totam angliam preterquam per Costiam maris c. 20’. Unfortunately, summaries like this do not always appear. A note on fol. 20v reads: ‘Et scrutentur omnia ad eos [coroners] partim littera O si hic non inveniantur’.

It seems clear that the statutes that antedate Edward III were regarded as something separate. The last of the citations to those statutes within each letter of the alphabet is always on a separate page, even if that means leaving the rest of the page blank. These citations are frequently followed by one or more blank pages before we reach the statutes from Edward III forward.

There do not seem to be any references to pre-Edward III statutes under the letter ‘H’, unless there is a reference to Articuli super cartas that got mixed in on the first page of statutes of Edward III. There are no references to pre-Edward III statutes under the letter ‘N’.

The scribe, or one of his predecessors, botched the letters ‘P’ and ‘Q’. He began what is now quire 13 with the pre-Edward III statutes under the lemmata beginning with ‘Q’. He then realized that he had forgotten the letter ‘P’, left two pages blank, perhaps for more of ‘Q’, and then entered the pre-Edward III statutes under the letter ‘P’, left a page blank, and started Edward III forward, filling in the rest of the quire from 2 Edw. 3 through 31 Edw. 3. Perhaps while he was waiting for another quire to be made up, he tucked 35 Edw. 3 and the beginning of 36 Edw. 3 into the space that he had left after ‘Q’, putting the rest of 36 Edw. 3 at the beginning of a new quire (now quire 12), which then runs regularly through 13 Hen. 6, with a blank page at the end. Our quire 14 contains the letter ‘R’ and begins letter ‘S’ in regular fashion.

There are two results of this botch. First, the letter ‘Q’ is probably incomplete for the pre-Edward III statutes, and there are no such statutes from Edward III forward. Second, this arrangement confused the binder. He put quire 12, beginning with 36 Edw. 3, ‘P’, before quire 13, which begins with ‘Q’ but then proceeds to the beginning of ‘P’. A note at the bottom of the beginning of 36 Edw. 3 calls attention to this fact, and the note at the beginning of the continuation 36 Edw. 3, which is hard to read, probably calls attention to the same fact.

In the Detailed Contents, we list in the notes all of the statutory references for letters ‘A’ and ‘U/V/W’ with their corresponding lemmata in the marginalia field, even where the lemma duplicates something that has already appeared in the letter. Where the statutory reference is assumed from a previous entry we put it in the square brackets. What we did with letters ‘A’ and ‘U/V/W’ gives a good idea of how extensive the index is. We also included a number of repeated lemmata in the letter ‘P’, which, as noted above, is out of order. In the intervening letters, we simply list once the statutory reference in the notes, with the lemma in the marginalia only where it has not appeared previously.

The outer margins are clipped on the verso, and some of the text of the citations is lost. We have done our best, and believe that we have identified all but two of them.

One hundred and one different statutes are cited. (There are two where the regnal year is missing, one of Edward III and one of Henry VI, and where we have not yet identified the subject of the citation. They may duplicate one that is already there.) Although the abridgements of statutes that antedate Edward III do not occupy as much space as those from 1 Edw. 3 forward, the range of the citations in such statutes is quite wide. As might be expected, Magna carta, Merton, Marlborough, Westminster I, Gloucester, Westminster II, and Articuli super cartas have many citations, but there are also citations to the Charter of the forest, De coheredibus, De bigamis, De religiosis, De mercatoribus, Winchester, Westminster III, De vocatis ad warrantum, De prisonam frangentibus, De finibus, and De coniunctis feoffatis. The statute of York of 12 Edw. 2 is the only statute of that king that is cited. (The text in the manuscript mistakenly attributes it to Edward III.) Prerogativa regis and Modus calumpniandi essoniam are the only statutes ‘temp. incert.’ that are cited.

It is curious that in a number of places Magna Carta is listed in conjunction with 2 Edw. 1, a year in which no parliament was held. Confirmatio cartarum is 25 Edw. 1; Articuli super cartas is 28 Edw. 1. Perhaps the scribe was copying from a exemplar where the regnal year xxviij was clipped, so that only the ij was visible.

If the statutes prior to Edward III are extensive but selective, those from 1 Edw. 3 forward seem to attempt comprehensiveness. There are 28 separate statutes of Edward III cited, 18 of Richard II, 12 of Henry IV, 7 of Henry V, and 12 of Henry VI, up through 15 Hen. 6, which is cited a number of times. The one citation of 18 Hen. 6 has all the hallmarks of an afterthought. This fact allows us to say that the index was substantially complete in, or shortly after, 1437.

The lemmata are not broken out into the margins or given as headings, as they are in other alphabetical indices. Rather, they appear at the beginning of the abridgement, sometimes by themselves, sometimes integrated into the abridgement. There are a large number of them; we have counted 415 separate lemmata, 99 more than the next largest number in the HLS manuscripts that contain alphabetical indices (MS 21, 316 lemmata). Some of this increase is the result of the fact that we treated as separate lemmata that are are combined in MS 21, for example, singulars and plurals of the same word. Some of it is the result of the fact that this index includes lemmata derived from statutes that antedate Edward III, whereas those in MS 21 do not. Some of it, however, is that result of the fact that the indexing of this manuscript includes items that were not indexed in MS 21, and vice-versa.

To get some idea of the differences, we compared the lemmata under the letter ‘A’ in this manuscript with those in MS 21. There are 51 such lemmata in this manuscript and 27 in MS 21. Twenty-one lemmata match with minor variations: Accomptes, Addicions, Administracioun (‘Administratours’ in MS 21), Admirallez (‘Admirall’ in 21), Alienacionz (‘Alienacioun’ in 21), Aliens, Amerciamentez (‘Amerciament’ in 21), Appellez (‘Appell’ in 21), Apprentises (‘Apprentice’ in 21), Appropacioun des beneficez (‘Approproacioun des esglises’ in 21), Areste (‘Arrestis’ in 21), Armure, Array (‘Arraie’ in 21), Arson (‘Arsure de measoun’ in 21), Artificers, Assise, Atteint, Attorneis (‘Attournes’ in 21), Aunage (‘Alnage’ in 21), Auncell, Avermen[t]s (‘Avermentis’ in 21).

Leaving aside the variants on the same topic (there are, for example, six different types of ‘assise’ or ‘assises’ in this manuscript, and more could be added), there are 13 topics in this manuscript that are not found in MS 21: A aler ove Roi, Abatement, Abbetement, Acciones en bref derrour, Advousons, Agaitez [i.e. in the English sense of ‘watch’ not ‘ambush’], Age, Amesurement de dower, Annuytees, Approvementez, Arreignment, Assembles des routes, Attachiament. Many, though not all, of these topics go back to pre-Edward III statutes. There are six lemmata in MS 21 that are not in this manuscript: Accusements, Aide de Roy, Ambidext, Apparell, Assache [a Welsh technical term], Aurum Regine. ‘Accusements’, ‘Aide de Roy’, and ‘Apparell’ are quite standard topics, and it is surprising that this manuscript does not have them. The other three are unusual and reflect a more general interest in MS 21 in unusual words and topics. They exist in this manuscript as well (the unusual use of ‘Agaittez’ is an example), but there are fewer of them.

Both indices reflect a quite profound knowledge of the statutes. The inclusion of the pre-Edward III statutes in this manuscript makes it more a summary of all English statutory law up to its time. The indexer of MS 21 seems to have had a greater capacity to generalize and also a keener eye for the unusual. These facts, coupled with the awkward arrangement of the index in this manuscript, probably lead to the index in MS 21 having a brighter future. Much of it seems to have been taken over into the index in MS 10, which is the one that was ultimately printed.

While we agree with HOLLIS and the Maggs catalogue that the index can be considered a separate part of the manuscript, we cannot agree with them that the statutes of Henry VI should be so considered. It is true that they lack the decorative program of the preceding statutes, but there are many manuscripts in which the decorative program is not completed. At best, that fact suggests, but does not prove, that the statutes of Henry VI were added after the decorative program was completed. If, however, we argue that the statutes of Henry VI were added later, we would have to say the same thing about all of the statutes that postdate the death of Edward III in 1377. The scribe who copied those statutes was almost certainly long dead when the Lancastrian statutes were added. We rather suspect, though we cannot quite prove, that the manuscript was compiled in three stages: (1) Edward III, (2) Richard II, (3) the Lancastrians. Other than absence of decoration there is nothing that distinguishes the statutes of Henry VI from those at least at the end of the reign Henry V. The hand seems to be the same. The statutes of Henry VI do not even begin on a new quire. They follow in quire 43 immediately after those of Henry V (admittedly with an intervening blank page).

Some of the statutes have marginalia in a quite formal script that may be related to the index. These marginalia frequently have colored braces, and they contain extensive citations to parallel statutes. Others have marginalia in a more informal script. We have not noted either type of marginalia systematically. An example of both kinds may be found on fol. 130v. That these notes appear here is interesting: the statute concerns purveyance, not typically a topic with which common lawyers were involved.

Baker, Men of Court 2:1566–7, has a number of Turpyns, and he tentatively identifies the owner of this manuscript with the first, John, who was admitted Lincoln’s Inn, 1460. That seems a little late for the composition of the manuscript. That fact leads us to suspect that the original owner was earlier. It may be that the note of ownership was not erased because the manuscript was handed down from one Turpyn to another. Be that as it may be, it seems clear that this manuscript was made up for a lawyer or an aspiring lawyer, someone who wanted as much detail on the statutes as he could get.