SOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 HENRY W. SAGE 
 
 1891 
 
The date shows when this volume was taken. 
 
 To renew this book cooy the call No. and give to 
 's the librarian. 
 
 
 HOME USE RULES 
 
 1?^ 
 
 AU Books subject to recall 
 ^ Ail^)0JTOwers must regis- 
 •Sa' Wt *^ *S« library to borrow 
 books for home use. 
 
 AU books must be re- 
 turned at end of college 
 year for inspection and 
 repairs. 
 
 Limited books must be 
 returned within the four 
 vviek limit and not renewed. 
 
 Students must return all 
 books before leaving town. 
 Ofiioers should arrange for 
 the return of books wanted 
 during their absence from 
 town. 
 
 Vohtmes of periodicals 
 and of pamphlets are held 
 in the library as much as 
 possible. For special pur- 
 poses they are given out for 
 n limited time. 
 
 Borrowers should not use 
 their library privileges for 
 the benefit of other persons. 
 
 Books of special value 
 and gift books, when the ' 
 giver wishes it, are not 
 allowed to circulate. 
 
 Readers are ask^d to re- 
 port all cases of books 
 marked or mutilated. 
 
 Cornell University Ubrary 
 BS1939 .H31 
 Origin of the Leicester codM 
 
 Overs 
 
 3 1924 029 308 800 
 
 olin 
 
 Do not deface books by marks and writing. 
 
J3S 
 
THE ORIGIN 
 
 OF THE 
 
 LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
aonfton; c. j. CLAY and sons, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, 
 AVE MARIA LANE. 
 
 Catniinbge : deighton, bell and co. 
 Eet{»(ig: f. a. brockhaus. 
 
THE ORIGIN 
 
 OF THE 
 
 LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT, 
 
 BY 
 
 J. RENDEL HARRIS, M.A. 
 
 FELLOW OF CLARE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, 
 
 AND 
 
 PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LANGUAGES IN HAVERFORD COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 C. J. CLAY AND SONS, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, 
 
 AVE MARIA LANE. 
 
 1887 
 
 [All Rights reserved] 
 
 L 
 
 il iJi / 
 
 i S' V 
 

 CAMBRIDGE : 
 
 PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 It is at first sight not a little curious to the person who com- 
 mences the critical study of the documents of the New Testament 
 to find that he can discover no settled proportion between the age 
 of a manuscript and the weight attached to it. It is true that the 
 best editors seem to have agreed in arriving (often by different 
 roads) at the conclusion that the earliest text is to be found in the 
 main in the earliest codices, but they seldom seem to enunciate 
 this as a fixed principle of criticism, and even when their results 
 are such as would flow with comparative ease from such an as- 
 sumption, we find that we are not permitted to infer that any 
 such empirical method has been employed by them when their 
 critical apparatus shews that they have given in many cases an 
 almost equal weight to some of the youngest MSS. which exist. 
 
 A little study, however, soon convinces the tyro of the impossi- 
 bility of determining any law by which the value of a codex can 
 be expressed in terms of its age only without reference to its 
 history, and leads him to expect occasional eccentric distributions 
 of authority which may make the first of two codices to be the 
 last, and conversely. Perhaps no more striking instance of this can 
 be found than in the pre-eminence given to the Leicester Codex 
 of the New Testament over the vast number of MSS. written in 
 the cursive hand and the greater part even of those written in the 
 uncial character. 
 
 A reference to the critical apparatus of Tregelles' New Testa- 
 ment will shew that along with those uncial MSS. upon which he 
 bases his text he makes use of readings from three MSS. denoted 
 (after the usual custom for cursives) by the numbers i, 33, 69. 
 
 L. c. I 
 
2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The last of these figures stands for the readings of a copy of 
 the Gospels preserved amongst the muniments of the borough of 
 Leicester which cannot, by any paleographic reasoning, be made 
 out as earlier than the fourteenth century and may conceivably be 
 later than the invention of printing. By what law of probability, 
 we ask ourselves, does this peculiar MS., this 'All-hallown Summer,' 
 derive an importance so out of keeping with its juvenility ? I think 
 we must admit that in one direction the Leicester Codex has ac- 
 quired a factitious importance from the repeated scrutiny to which 
 it has been subjected : critics are well aware that this copy is one 
 of a group of four (the youngest of them), which are now known 
 to be derived from a common lost original, perhaps uncial, though 
 e'qually likely to be cursive, but in any case of great critical 
 importance. But no one of the group has been the matter of 
 such careful enquiry as the Leicester Codex. The other three are 
 located respectively at Paris (Cod. 13), Milan (Cod. 346) and Vienna 
 (Cod. 124), and the Paris copy in particular is suspected of being 
 the almost immediate ancestor of the Leicester copy, and there- 
 fore of sufficient importance to put the latter entirely into the 
 shade ; but the Leicester MS. drew attention first, for the simple 
 reason that it was accessible to English scholars who in the 
 earliest days of New Testament study did the greater part of 
 the hard work and have not yet altogether relinquished the 
 position in New Testament criticism which naturally falls to the 
 lot of a religious people. 
 
 Scholar after scholar has turned its pages, of whose work notes 
 and memoranda may be found on the fly-leaves and margins. 
 Tregelles, Dobbin, Scrivener and Burgon have attempted to com- 
 plete the sporadic collations made by Mill, Jackson and others ; 
 add to these the names of Richard Smyth, M.A., Professor of 
 Oriental Literature, London, whose name appears at the end of 
 the book as having collated it in September, 1866, Dr C. R. 
 Gregory and myself, and some idea may be formed of the 
 zealous attention bestowed upon the text. 
 
 But if the importance thus given seem a little artificial and 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 unduly proportional to the number of readers (although those 
 who work on these lines will, I think, incline to the opinion that 
 one good text collated thoroughly is really worth more than 
 many better texts known imperfectly) we must add that there 
 are other reasons why this MS. should be made the material 
 for further study and closer scrutiny. 
 
 To begin with, there has lately been issued by M. I'Abbe 
 Martin a remarkable tract in textual criticism' dealing precisely 
 with the very group of which the Leicester Codex is so dis- 
 tinguished a member, and shewing with a high degree of 
 probability the direction in which their lost original must have 
 lain and where it may perhaps yet be found. 
 
 It is true that M. Martin does not endorse altogether the 
 arguments for the common origin of the four codices, but he 
 does what amounts to much the same thing, by demonstrating 
 that three out of the four have common internal and paleographic 
 peculiarities which locate them all in Calabria or perhaps Sicily, 
 so that they are either MSS. which have . absorbed common 
 local oddities of text, or are the common descendants of an 
 eccentric Calabrian ancestor. These points M. Martin essays to 
 establish from actual notes made by him on the copies in Paris, 
 Vienna, and Milan. He does even more, he adds to the group 
 a fifth and perhaps a sixth MS. which has close textual relations 
 with them, and points out directions in which the important 
 genealogical relations that subsist between what I suppose he 
 would call the Calabrian family may be made a matter of more 
 extended study by the search after fresh copies of a similar type. 
 
 Now it is not my intention in the following pages to either 
 approve or contradict in detail the Abbe's conclusions ; it is 
 quite likely that he is correct in tracing the three copies to a 
 Calabrian origin : I believe Dr Hort has arrived at something of ' 
 the same conclusion by the direct comparison of the readings 
 of the so-called Ferrar-group with the recently-recovered Codex 
 Rossanensis : and certainly I can have no objection to the 
 
 1 Quatre tnanuscrifs importants, &c. Paris. Maisonneuve. 
 
 I — 2 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 extension of the group which, it is no rash prediction to say, is 
 much wider in numbers and diffusion than Professor Ferrar 
 suspected when he made his comparison of the four members 
 of the group, or the Abb6 Martin when he made his recent 
 paleographical studies in the Hbraries where these books are 
 preserved. In fact, unless. I am much mistaken, a MS. upon 
 which I have recently spent a good deal of time in England, 
 and >vhich, I believe, demonstrably came in the first instance 
 from Constantinople, is nothing else than a member of the same 
 group in which the peculiarities have been worn down by the 
 insertion of readings from the commonly-received texts. I refer 
 to Cod. 561 of the Gospels. But of this more in another place. 
 Nor is there much fear that the conclusions arrived at by 
 Professor Ferrar will be seriously invalidated by the theory of 
 local peculiarities ; no eccentricities belonging to scribes of a 
 given region would suffice to explain the fact that four MSS. 
 agree to spell the word Mwucri^s in one way at a given point 
 and three verses after agree to change the spelling to Mwo-i^s 
 (Luke ix. 30). 
 
 What does come to the front in connexion with the Abbe's 
 researches is that the time has arrived when some attempt should 
 be made to extract from the Leicester Codex (which is the one 
 member of the group not studied by him) an account of its history, 
 and to determine whether any light can be thrown upon its gene- 
 alogical relations to the other MSS. of the New Testament which 
 are known to us. Something of this kind is attempted in the 
 following pages ; and I think it will be. found that not only the 
 Leicester Codex will be better understood through these investi- 
 gations, but a good deal of fresh information is accumulated of 
 importance to the paleographer, especially in reference to Greek 
 MSS. produced or circulated in England in the period immediately 
 preceding the invention of printing. 
 
 Nor should it be forgotten that there is something to be 
 learned from the relations of the Leicester Codex to contem- 
 porary or later MSS. where these relationships can in any degree 
 
INTRODUCTION. S 
 
 be traced. If the Leicester Codex is an example of a copy 
 whose readings claim an attention deservedly far above what we 
 should have expected from so late a codex, there is another MS. 
 of even later date which has acquired a historical importance, 
 chiefly by the accidental circumstance that it contained a passage 
 fabricated to order in the first great dispute of the editors of the 
 Greek Testament, the verse known as the ' Three Heavenly 
 Witnesses.' 
 
 This MS., the Codex Montfortianus of Mill, the Codex: Britan- 
 nicus of Erasmus, has been the subject of one very important 
 (though hardly complete) work by Dobbin ; and we are still far 
 from knowing yet all that we ought to know with regard to its 
 origin and composition. What we do know about it in certain 
 directions, such as the fact that it once belonged to the same owner 
 as the Leicester Codex, by whom readings were transferred 
 from the latter to the margin of the former, and the suspicion 
 almost amounting to certainty that in the Apocalypse the Montfort 
 Codex is an actual copy of the Leicester MS., leads us to the belief 
 that any enquiry which touches on the one MS. will be likely .to 
 throw light indirectly upon the circumstances of the production of 
 the other. And such researches, though made upon a manuscript 
 that is textually of little worth, are not to be undervalued, if we 
 remember the way in which we are constantly brought to the con- 
 clusion that in studying any of the New Testament documents our 
 results are more likely to be ultimately fruitful beyond their im- 
 mediate application than the contrary. 
 
THE ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX OF THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 I. The handwriting of the Leicester Codex. 
 
 Beyond the speculative relation of the Leicester MS. to the 
 important Paris cursive ( = Cod. 13 of the Gospels) which was 
 suggested by Professor Ferrar, and the relationship in the matter 
 of a common owner and partial direct pedigree between it and 
 the Montfort Codex (the former of which points will be noticed 
 later on more carefully, while the latter is a statement of Dr 
 Barrett, followed by Dr Dobbin though denied by Dr Scrivener 
 in part), the MS. gives but little clue by which we may 
 prosecute our search after its origin and affinities. Its handwriting 
 is so peculiar that it has hitherto been without a companion in 
 paleographical description ; the paper upon which it is written (at 
 least in part) is not easily matched, and the pen seems to have 
 been either so badly made or so strangely held that Dr 
 Scrivener has given it as his opinion that the instrument was 
 in reality a reed. When we turn from the writing to the text 
 itself, we find no subscriptions, prefaces, stichometry, scribe's 
 verses, internal divisions or appendices (beyond one or two pieces 
 to be referred to later . on), which can help us to trace or 
 locate the text. 
 
 However, we are in the position to make some remarks as 
 to the nature of the handwriting, and to raise suspicions as to 
 the school to which it belongs, as well as to point out another 
 important codex written by the very same hand, and from this 
 point we shall have plain sailing for a good way towards the 
 point that we want to reach. 
 
8 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 Now in reference to the handwriting, Scrivener speaks of it 
 in too depreciating language. " It is written," says he, " in the 
 coarse and strange hand which our facsimile exhibits, epsilon 
 being recumbent and almost like alpha, and the whole style of 
 writing resembling a careless scrawl." Concerning this criticism 
 I find that in my first visit to the MS. in September, 1884, 
 I noted on the margin of the above quotation [Inirod. N. T. 
 p. 190) that Scrivener's facsimile in this Introduction gives a 
 very inadequate idea of the writing. The same is true of the 
 facsimile in Cod. Augiensis. This remark may be verified upon 
 the photographs of the MS. presented in the present book. 
 Strange the writing may be, but coarse it is not ; and to call 
 it a careless scrawl is to do the scribe a great injustice : he 
 probably wrote fast and freely, but not without a certain degree 
 of elegance. Professor Ferrar's facsimile in his Four MSS. 
 Collated is even less satisfactory than Scrivener's. But these 
 judgments the reader is now able to revise for himself. 
 
 The most noticeable peculiarities in the script are the e as 
 pointed out by Scrivener, the breathings and the accents. The 
 grave accent is often written vertically or even acute. The breath- 
 ings are easily confused, as pointed out by Scrivener, especially 
 when written in combination with an accent. Not infrequently 
 the accent is placed over a consonant ahead of its vowel. But 
 of all these peculiarities the most striking is the recumbent c, 
 which has given sometimes the impression that the whole of the 
 writing was back-handed. 
 
 The only MS. which I have seen (apart from one by the 
 very same hand, to which I shall allude presently) which shews 
 the recumbent e in a striking manner is a copy of Homer with 
 Paralipomena of Quintus Calaber in the library of Corpus Christi 
 College, Cambridge. The MS. is a paper one, of the end of 
 the fifteenth century, though Matthew Parker who presented it 
 to the College has with his normal incapacity in such matters 
 assigned it to the seventh century. The hand is similar to the 
 Leicester scribe's, not only in the recumbent e but in the style 
 of accents and breathings. The outside leaves are water-marked 
 with a pair of crossed arrows, from the junction of which a 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 9 
 
 six-pointed star is pendent. Now the crossed arrows with or 
 without additions, such as an enclosing circle or the like, are not 
 difficult to identify. I find them in the editio princeps of Rabbi 
 Nachman on the Pentateuch ; they are also given by Sotheby 
 {Principia Typographica) as found in the following printed books : 
 
 Tortellius (loannes) Archipresbyter Aretinus; Commentarii Grammatici de Ortho- 
 
 graphia. Romae, per Ulricum Galium, 147 1. 
 Strabo: Geographiae libri xvii latine, Guarino Veronensi et Gregorio Typhemate 
 
 interpretibus. Venetiis, per Vindelinum de Spira, 1472. 
 Valerius Maximus. Venetiis, apud Vindelinum de Spira, 1471. 
 Cicero (M. Tullius). Epistolae ad Familiares. (Venetiis) per Nicolaum Jenson, 
 
 I47S- 
 Dante Alighieri di Firenze: la Divina Commedia. Venetiis, apud Vindelinum 
 de Spira, 1477. 
 And a similar Watermark is given by Bodemann {Xylographische und Typo- 
 
 graphische Incunabeln) as found in Augustinus: de Civitate Dei. Venetiis 
 
 John et Vindelin de Spira, 1470. 
 
 From the above it is not difficult to conclude that the Corpus 
 Homer is an Italian production, probably Venetian and capable 
 of being very closely dated. It is true that these outside leaves 
 which Matthew Parker and his secretary have utilised may con- 
 ceivably be a little later than the main body of the book, which 
 has a somewhat different water-mark, namely, a circle with one 
 or two interior curves added and surmounted by a cross: but I 
 do not think the conclusion can be very different either in time 
 or place to what is given above, and so far as the analogy is 
 worth anything it would lead- us to say that the scribe of the 
 Leicester Codex wrote an. Italian hand, probably a fifteenth century 
 hand. The speculation must not however be taken for more than 
 it is worth, especially as the resemblance between the hands in the 
 two codices does not extend much beyond the peculiarities alluded 
 to above. It is however interesting to remark that my friend 
 Mr Lewis, the librarian of Corpus Christi, had already labelled 
 the Homer, on the faith of a foreign paleographer, as being 
 written in an Italian hand; and that Dr Scrivener, on the other 
 hand, had remarked in his description of the Leicester Codex 
 which will be found attached to his Codex Augiensis, that a similar 
 suggestion had been made with regard to that manuscript by an 
 
 L. c. ■ 2 
 
10 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 antiquarian of eminence. We pass on to a more important piece 
 of paleographical evidence with regard to the Leicester Codex \ 
 
 II. On a Greek Psalter preserved in the Library of Caius 
 
 College. 
 
 Leaving the somewhat uncertain groping after evidence of the 
 previous chapter we step out into the sunlight of direct knowledge 
 with the statement that in the Library of Caius College, Cambridge, 
 there is an important MS. by the very same hand as the Leicester 
 Codex. It was my good fortune to meet with this book on June 
 25th, 1886, and at once to realise the importance of its relation to 
 the Cod. 69, my friend Mr Bensly informing me that the identifi- 
 cation had already been made by Dr Swete through the similarity 
 of the handwriting to the Scrivener-facsimile. And I might add 
 that a large part of the researches which follow are the result 
 
 ^ For those who are interested in these 
 matters I subjoin Matthew Parker's notes in 
 the Corpus Homer, remarking only by way 
 of explanation that the name 
 GEO 
 
 An 
 
 POZ 
 
 is found on the first leaf in a bay wreath, on 
 a blue ground with gold letters. 
 
 "Dominus huius codicis Theodorus natus 
 tharso cilicie ordinatus a vitaliano pp. archi- 
 presbt dorouernensis ecclie an° dnicae incar- 
 nationis sexcentesimo sexagesimo octavo vii 
 kal. April dnica et sedit annos xxi menses 
 tres dies viginti sex. Egberto rege Cantua- 
 riorum et Oswino Northammiorum regibus 
 (sic), annos natus Ixvi. Romae monachus. 
 Mattheus Cantuar. 
 
 Hie Theodorus vir et secular! et divina 
 literatura grace et latine instructus, Romae 
 monachus, probus moribus et aetatis vene- 
 randus, id est, annos habens aetatis 66 mis- 
 sus per Vitalianum papam in Angliam per- 
 venit autem Theodorus ad eccliam suam 
 secundo postquam consecratus est anno sub 
 die sexto calendarum luniarum dominica. 
 
 qui Theodorus secum tulit Adrianum quen- 
 dam monachum libris grecis et latinis ap- 
 prime instructum quem praefert abbatem in 
 monasterio beati Petri appostoli ubi Archiepi 
 Cantua sepeliri solent. Hie Theodorus per- 
 agrata mox insula tota quaque versum An- 
 glorum gentis morabantur (nam et libentis- 
 sime ab omnibus suscipiebatur atque audi- 
 ebatur) rectum vivendi ordinem ritumque 
 celebrandi paschae canonicum per omnia 
 comitante et cooperante Adriano dissemina- 
 bat. Isque erat primus Archiepus cui omnes 
 Anglorum ecclie manus dare consentiebant, 
 qui Uteris sacris et secularibus abundanter 
 ambo instructi congregata discipulorum ca- 
 terva scientie salutaris quotidie flumina inri- 
 gandis eorum cordibus emanabant. Inditio 
 est (ut Beda scribit li. 4°) quod usque hodie 
 supersunt de eorum discipulis qui latinam 
 grecamque aeque ut propriam in qua nati 
 sunt norunt neque unquam prorsus ex quo 
 Britanniam petierunt Angli feliciora fuere 
 tempora etc." 
 
 All this and a great deal more by a 
 learned Archbishop and his secretary over 
 a MS. about a hundred years old ! 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ii 
 
 of the sympathetic co-operation and learning of Mr Bensly who 
 has frequently sacrificed whole days in order to assist me in the 
 elucidation of some obscure point. 
 
 First of all I place the materials for the identification of the 
 handwriting before the reader in the shape of photographs from 
 each MS. Of the two, the Caius MS. is better in script, as 
 it is superior in material, and perhaps slightly earlier in date. 
 The same peculiarities appear however in both codices such as 
 the recumbent e, and in many parts of the Psalter the reedy 
 appearance of the handwriting is just as conspicuous as in the 
 Leicester MS. However I think the comparison of the two 
 specimen pages selected at random from the Leicester MS., with 
 a page from the Psalter as regards the writing, will be sufficient 
 to enable the amateur in such matters equally with the expert 
 to come to a satisfactory conclusion as to the identity of the 
 two penmen. Further evidence will be forthcoming on the point 
 presently. 
 
 Second, we subjoin the description of the Psalter' as it is 
 found in Smith's Catalogue of the Caius MSS. 
 
 "Psalterium Davidis, Graece. Large octavo, clean stout vellum, 
 in wood covered with leather, ff. 132. Rubrics and initials of verses 
 in red, fol. numbered below in Greek letters and the number of 
 sheets in old numerals. On the first fly-leaf in Dr Caius' hand, 
 ' Collegio de Goneville et Caius, Gulielmus Mowse LL Doctor 
 dono dedit 15 71.' On p. 113 'here xeeld (1. xwld) be no qweyr' 
 off ye nubyr off 8 ffor her ys all q fTr. Ric. Brynkeley.' At 
 the end are written Isai. c. xxxviii. ver. 10 and Exod. ch. xv. 
 Benedicite Magnificat and Benedictus Deus^ &c. The rubric 
 lettering and numbering are not carried through." 
 
 Thus far Smith: who means to say or should have said that 
 each quire (quaternion) of the MS. is marked at the bottom of 
 the first page in early Arabic numerals and also in the corner 
 in Greek numerals, while the successive leaves after the first of 
 the quire are numbered successively as the 2nd, 3rd &c. of the ist, 
 
 ^ The text of this book was collated for 2 /_^_ jj should be described as Psalter and 
 the LXX. of Holmes and Parsons, in whose Canticles, 
 critical apparatus it stands No. 206. 
 
 2—2 
 
12 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 2nd and following quires. Our facsimile gives some idea of this, 
 along with the weighty note to which Smith refers, in which a 
 certain brother Brynkeley explains the accident by which the 
 notation of the quires jumps from 7 to 9 and asserts that there 
 is no missing quire. The Greek numeration is correctly given 
 as our facsimile shews. 
 
 On the recto of the 97th leaf we again find the name of 
 Brynkeley written in a fine gothic minuscule on the outer margin 
 of the leaf, the spelling being Bryngkelei. These notes of owner- 
 ship are of the utmost importance in what follows, for if we can 
 trace back the Caius Psalter to its source, it will land us in the origin 
 of the Leicester Codex or so near to it in time and place that the 
 differences are of no moment. Before, however, we complete our 
 description of the Psalter and give the history so far as it can 
 ■ be traced of brother Brynkeley, it is best to complete the identifi- 
 cation of the scribes of the two MSS. in question by adding 
 some evidence of a paleographical character which will probably 
 dispel any doubts surviving in the minds of those who realize 
 how delicate a point the identification of handwritings sometimes 
 is. And since the whole evidence of a common origin depends 
 on the demonstration of the common hand we add here the 
 considerations derived from the structure of the two books con- 
 sidered paleographically. And in so doing we shall not only 
 fortify the previous conclusion, but add to the existing knowledge 
 with regard to the book-form of the times when our MSS. were 
 produced. 
 
 III. On the Quires, Catchwords, &c. of the Leicester Codex. 
 
 We have already alluded to the arrangement of the leaves of 
 the Caius MS., as testified by the signatures of the first pages in 
 each quire. The book follows the ordinary quaternion arrange- 
 ment, and has nothing singular, except that there are catchwords 
 from quire to quire, and that for the first half of each quire the 
 leaves are numbered successively as being the 2nd, 3rd, 4th leaves 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 13 
 
 of the numbered quire. So that the fourth leaf of the fifth quire 
 would be marked in the corner of its first page 
 
 the flourishes being very curiously made. 
 
 Now let us turn to the Leicester MS. 
 
 Recognising that the unit of composition in a Greek MS. is 
 the quire, we ask ourselves what is the quire-arrangement in the 
 codex. It will be worth while to examine this matter somewhat 
 in detail. The MS. is, as is well known, composed of mixed 
 vellum and paper, and as far as I know, no one has published 
 any notes on the relative arrangement of the two materials in the 
 structure of the quire ; vellum-paper MSS. remain to be studied, 
 as is frequently and unfortunately the case with transitional forms. 
 Now the first descriptions of the codex attribute the arrangement 
 of vellum and paper entirely to chance. Wetstein uses the words 
 "temere permixtis." So Tregelles in Home's Introd. p. 210 
 " Paper and vellum are used indiscriminately in its construction." 
 Scrivener has corrected this statement by shewing that the book 
 is generally composed of two vellum followed by three leaves of 
 paper, "evidently with a calculation on the part of the writer as to 
 how long the costlier material would hold out." And he expresses 
 himself in a similar manner on p. 23 of the third edition of his In- 
 troduction to the New Testament, remarking that " Lost portions of 
 parchment or vellum MSS. are often supplied in paper by some later 
 hand ; but the Codex Leicestrensis is unique in this respect, being 
 composed of a mixture of inferior vellum and worse paper, regularly 
 arranged in the proportion of two parchment to three paper leaves, 
 recurring alternately throughout the volume." Now in these 
 statements we have no clue to the structure of the quire : the 
 Leicester Codex is further not unique either in being composed of 
 mixed vellum and paper or in the manner in which the materials 
 are arranged, and if it is not unique, the key to the arrangement 
 is to be found in custom and not in any calculation as to the 
 amount of vellum possessed by the scribe. That it is not unique 
 in reference to the use of vellum and paper needs hardly to be 
 demonstrated, but it may be noted that Dr Scrivener himself 
 
14 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 records a similar use of materials in two copies of the Gospels, 
 viz. Cod. 205, written for Cardinal Bessarion by John Rhosus, and 
 now in the library of St Mark, and Cod. 233, now in the Escurial, 
 but formerly the property of Matthew Dandolo, a Venetian noble. 
 (How useful it might be if some one would determine for us more 
 exactly the quire-structure and dates of these two Venetian copies !) 
 And the proof that the arrangement of the Leicester Codex is not 
 unique lies in the reference to other codices which have the same 
 or only a slightly different sequence of paper and vellum leaves. 
 We will for the present mention only one, viz. Mus. Brit. Harl. 3 161, 
 whose sequence is sometimes four and sometimes five leaves of 
 paper to two of vellum. 
 
 This brings us to the actual arrangement of the Leicester Codex, 
 assumed to be no longer an arbitrary matter. 
 
 The complete quire is formed of ten leaves, or more exactly 
 five leaves doubled (what is sometimes called a quinion). So that 
 the structure of a quire is as follows, V standing for a vellum leaf 
 and P for paper : 
 
 V .^ ._ V 
 
 P^- >- _ .P 
 
 p ,. ^^ . p 
 
 p , ■>- -^ p 
 
 V V 
 
 The reason of this arrangement seems to lie partly in the pro- 
 tection of the less durable material from the friction to which 
 detached quires are subject. This is the normal quire of the 
 Leicester MS. According to this new quires begin on foil, i, 11, 
 21, 31, 41, 51, 61, 71, 81, 91. The quire however that begins 
 with 91 is peculiar, it is composed of VPPPPV, i.e. one double leaf 
 of vellum and two of paper (ternion). Nor is the reason far to 
 seek : for this quire ends the gospels, and there is always a tradition 
 in favour of beginning a new group of books with a new quire. 
 The epistles of Paul follow, the quires beginning on foil. 97, 107, 
 117, 127, 137 (the last quire being VPVVPV), then 143, 153 the 
 final vellum leaf of which quire is cut away (probably because it 
 was blank and the Pauline epistles were ended). The Acts and 
 Cath. Epp. begin with a new quire on fol. 162, and continue with 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 15 
 
 quires at 172, 182 and 192, where the epistle of Jude stops abruptly 
 with the close of the quire. The Apocalypse begins on a paper leaf, 
 and up to the point where it is mutilated runs PPPPPVVPPPPP, 
 but not divided into two quires although there is a catchword at 
 the end of the second V. Such being the arrangement of the book, 
 it should be noted that almost all the quires have catchwords, and 
 that not only on the last leaf of the quire but frequently in the 
 early paper leaves (to assist the rapid arrangement of a quire in 
 proper order). More than this the leaves in, the early part of the 
 separate quires have generally a leaf-signature assigning their place 
 in the quire. These are often cut away by the binder, and are 
 dismissed by Scrivener with a remark that a few words often 
 illegible are scribbled at the foot of the first page of each leaf. 
 
 Now these leaf-signatures are precisely similar to those found 
 in the Cuius Psalter, they are the same in handwriting, abbreviations, 
 flourishes, &c. and complete the proof that the same hand wrote 
 the two books. As in the Caius MS. and for obvious reasons they 
 only occur in the first half of each quire. 
 
 When we examine the quire-signatures and leaf-signatures more 
 closely another fact comes to light, viz. that the MS. has been 
 re-arranged: e.g. on fol. 14 we find ^v^ S tov lS"', i.e. the 4th 
 leaf of the i6th quire, and so on throughout the Gospels. Further, 
 when we come to the Pauline epistles, instead of passing from 
 quire 24 (the last quire in the Gospels) to quire 25 we begin with 
 a' (i) and run up to C' (?)• In the Acts there are no numbers 
 apparent, and only catchwords from quire to quire, and occasionally 
 upon the paper leaves. The Apocalypse has, I think, only a single 
 catchword at the end of the vellum leaf. 
 
 Now from this It appears that the Gospels did not originally 
 stand at the beginning of the codex, but at the end. For when 
 we allow for the portion of the Gospel of Matthew which is lost 
 with its prefixed table of chapters, making close on two missing 
 quires, we find that the Gospels would have begun with quire 13. 
 
 Arranging then the book In the order 
 
 Paul. ( = 7) + Act.-Cath. ( = 4) 
 we have 1 1 quires ; but then the epistle of Jude has lost a leaf 
 
1 6 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 which seems to be the first leaf of the quire in which the Apo- 
 calypse stood (so that we should have Apoc. bound up with Act.- 
 Cath., and the vellum leaf of the large quire VP'VVP'V lost 
 from the beginning and end). This brings the right number of 
 quires to the Gospels, which accordingly stood last, a point which, 
 I believe, has been already noticed by Dr Gregory. 
 
 The whole construction is interesting, Act.-Cath.-Apoc. forming 
 a complete section, and the Gospels standing, at the end. And 
 yet who shall say whether it is unique ? 
 
 We should not omit to mention in this connexion that the 
 foregoing enquiry adds something to the case for the antiquity 
 of the Leicester MS. It has been noted by Dr Dobbin that the 
 MS. must have been mutilated at the beginning before it came 
 into the hands of its earliest known possessor William Chark, for 
 Chark's name stands (not indeed as Dobbin gives it oXtju, 'iXepfiov 
 XapKov, but elfiL 'IXepfJiov XapKov) at the beginning of the mutilated 
 book. We may safely infer that the codex was well worn before 
 it came into Chark's hands, further it had been re-arranged before 
 it reached him, or otherwise the mutilations would not be found 
 where they are. Add to this that the whole of the book has 
 been studiously repaired, both vellum and paper leaves, by the 
 introduction of strips of a commoner paper, which needs to be 
 made the subject of further examination. 
 
 So far as the evidence is worth anything it seems to shew 
 that the MS. had seen its share of the vicissitudes of book-life 
 before the end of the sixteenth century. 
 
 Observe further that my count of the number of leaves does 
 not agree with that given by Scrivener and other writers. My 
 calculation is 
 
 nine quinions 
 
 = 90 
 
 leaves 
 
 one ternion 
 
 = 6 
 
 
 four quinions 
 
 = 40 
 
 
 one ternion 
 
 = 6 
 
 
 two quinions minus one leaf 
 
 = 19 
 
 
 four quinions 
 
 = 40 
 
 
 and twelve concluding leaves 
 
 = 12 
 
 
 
 213 
 
 leaves in all. 
 
 of which 83 are velljim, and 130 paper. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 17 
 
 According to Scrivener 91 are vellum, and 122 are paper, 
 so that there are eight leaves of disputed material in the book ! 
 
 IV. On the former owners of the Caius Psalter. 
 
 Having now completed the demonstration of the identity of 
 origin of the two MSS., we proceed to trace their ownership as 
 far as possible. And we begin with the Caius Psalter as being 
 the most promising direction. The MS. was presented to Caius 
 College in 1571 by Dr William Mowse. Mowse was Master of 
 Trinity Hall, and apparently a friend of Dr Caius as well as a 
 next-door neighbour. A good many particulars with regard to 
 him may be found in Cooper, Athenae Cantab. 11. 43. His official 
 connexion with Trinity Hall was abruptly severed twelve years 
 before he presented the Psalter to Caius College, by his refusal to 
 take the oath of supremacy which was then being tendered to the 
 whole body of the University and College officers. Mowse's place 
 was filled by Dr Henry Harvey, Vice- Chancellor of the University 
 in the year following his election as Master \ 
 
 Richard Brynkley is the earliest known possessor of the Caius 
 Psalter. The only evidence that we have yet produced with regard 
 to him consists in the fact that he signs \\m\s^i frater : he was ac- 
 cordingly a member of a monastic community, and it is not, there- 
 fore, a difficult step of the imagination to infer that the Psalter 
 passed into Mowse's hands either directly or with very slight 
 interposition of ownership at the time of the dissolution of the 
 monasteries ^ And we shall shew that Richard Brynkley was a 
 student in Cambridge University and a member of the Franciscan 
 order in that place (Grey-friars) ; that he became provincial minister 
 of the order in England; that he continued in this office until the 
 dissolution of the monasteries, and was buried in Cambridge. 
 
 When these and other interesting points are established we shall 
 have advanced the matter in hand a good bit. We shall arrange 
 our history of Brinkley in the following order. First, we draw atten- 
 
 ^ MuUinger, Hist. Univ. Camb.w. lyj. sessor, in quest of whom we must now go. 
 
 We have not much need to enquire further ^ Scrivener has ventured this suggestion ' 
 
 into Mowse's history, for the simple reason as to the monastic origin of the Codex in 
 
 that we have the name of an earUer pos- his Cod. Augiensis. 
 
 L. C. 3 
 
i8 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 tion to existing MSS. which were at one time or other in his pos- 
 session and contain notes of his own on their fly-leaves or margins. 
 
 There is in the British Museum a MS. {Chop. C. 9) which con- 
 tains the following treatises : De gestis Ricardi primi regis (extracted 
 from Roger de Hoveden), followed by Lamentationes Matheoluli 
 and versus Staptdensis ad Engelbranum praesulem. On f. 63, where 
 the Lamentationes begin, we find the following note : " Liber ffris 
 Thomae Trupyton sacrae theologiae doctor, ordinis minorum quern 
 dedit ffri Ricardo Brynkele tunc temporis studenti Cantabrigie." 
 
 The above inscription (with one or two abbreviations reduced) 
 is in two hands, of which the second is I think Brinkley's own, 
 beginning "quem dedit;" and in that case the first line is Dr 
 Thomas Trumpynton's writing. The latter was by his own admis- 
 sion a Franciscan friar ; and it is clear enough, if there were no 
 other evidence, that Brinkley studied under him or near him. 
 Observe in passing that both names are of families in the Eastern 
 counties : " Trompyngtoun nat fer fro Cantebrigge " we need not. 
 dwell on ; Brinkley is a village not far from Newmarket, and within 
 a walk of Cambridge. The Brinkley family had monastic tradi- 
 tions : John de Brinkeley, LL.B., was made Abbot of Bury in 1361 
 and died 1369^ Another John Brinkley was ordained deacon 
 I June, 1409, and priest of the order of friars preachers at Cambridge 
 March 28, 141 1. Another Richard Brinkley is given as Dean of 
 the Arches in 1407 in Newcourt's Repertorium i. 443. 
 
 The next book that we know to have been at one time in his pos- 
 session is a far more famous one, the celebrated Caius gospels. The 
 foUo'wing notes from Smith's Catalogue may be given with some 
 corrections necessary at certain points, in addition to those accounts of 
 the book which are found in the pages of Scrivener or Tischendorf. 
 
 "The ink is fine, like paint. On p. i is 806, after it 1806 and 
 this inscription, Iste liber est de con- fratrum minorum Oxonie omis- 
 sus et accommodatus fri. Ric. Brynkeley Magistro. Above in the 
 same hand q'"""^ Evang. 1. 806. Then follows the title novu*" Tes- 
 
 ^ TAaXlstone, History of Boitishatn Abbey,-^. Monachorum S. Edmundi emptus per domi- 
 ' 177. This John de Brinkeley was the owner num loh. de Brinkeley abbatem in quaternis 
 of the MS. 8 E X. in the British Museum. A et per fratrem Robertum de Beccles col- 
 note in the book states that it is " Liber ligatus." 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 19 
 
 tamentum Graecum, quod Collegio de Gonville et Caius dono dedit 
 Thomas Hatcher Artium Magister 1567." Observe that the unin- 
 telligible 806 and 1806 are only a misunderstanding — of the closing 
 letters in quatuor evan I stas, also for con- read conite (? communi- 
 tate, conventu), for omissus read concessus. The last words from 
 ' concessus ' to ' magistro ' are in a different hand, viz. Brinkley's 
 own, as appears when Smith's spelling is corrected to Bryngkeley 
 and the writing compared with the marginal note in the Psalter. 
 
 Observe further that on the margin of the book in the eleventh 
 chapter of Luke, and in the same hand as before, we find nf bryng- 
 keley ; and again at the end of the Gospels, by a rude hand, 
 
 p ^pTjVKeXei StSacr/coXws 
 
 where the StSacr/caXos is evidently meant for Magister, the title of 
 the provincial minister of the order. It appears, therefore, that 
 Brinkley borrowed the book from the Grey Friars at Oxford, 
 which his authority and his fraternity entitled him to do, that he 
 took it to Cambridge from whence it did not return, but passed suc- 
 cessively to Hatcher and the library of Caius College. We have thus 
 not only collected valuable information as to Brinkley himself, but 
 we have restored a part of his library, as follows : 
 
 Lament. Matheoluli 
 Thomas Trumpington 
 
 Richard Brynkeley 
 
 British Museum 
 
 Caius Psalter 
 
 Richard Brynkeley 
 
 I 
 WiUiam Mowse 
 
 Caius Gospels 
 
 Grossteste? 
 
 I 
 Friars Minors of Oxford 
 
 I 
 Richard Brynkeley 
 
 I 
 Thomas Hatcher 
 
 . I 
 Caius College 
 
 Caius College 
 
 And it is now within the bounds of speculation that if we 
 were to add to the above 
 
 Leicester Codex 
 Richard Brynkeley 
 
 William Chark 
 
 I 
 Thomas Hayne 
 
 I 
 Leicester Borough 
 
20 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 we should not be very wide of the mark, but we will not draw 
 conclusions too soon'. 
 
 One other MS. may be added to the foregoing : it does not 
 indeed contain any mark of Brinkley's ownership, but it is a 
 Franciscan MS. which has reached Caius College Library through 
 the same source as the Gospels, viz. Thomas Hatcher; and when we 
 remark that it has within it the name of a predecessor of Brinkley 
 in the provincial Wardenship of the order, it is almost certain that 
 it passed through his hands to Hatcher, and so to the College. . The 
 description which I append would then shew an additional member 
 of the Franciscan-Brinkley Library, whose owners were 
 
 John Milham 
 
 I . 
 John la Zowch 
 
 I 
 [Richard Brinkeley] 
 
 I 
 John Aynsworth of Christ's College 
 
 ■I 
 Thomas Hatcher of King's College 
 
 I 
 Caius College (Cod. 372). 
 
 The history of this MS. is arrived at as follows: 
 
 1 Not to disturb our study of the Brinkley and after studyed Physicke. He tooke great 
 
 History, which is the main point, I relegate paines in collecting this Catalogue in token 
 
 the following not wholly uninteresting matter of his loue to this royall foundation. He 
 
 to a note. wrote 2 bookes according to the Centurie of 
 
 The Caius Gospels are so important both Baleus of excellent men that had been of this 
 
 textually and paleographically that I subjoin Universitie since the time of the foundation 
 
 a few remarks with reference to them. of this CoUedge, and a chronologie of Cam- 
 
 a. The Thomas Hatcher who presented bridge antiquities, being himself a great An- 
 the book to the College was the son of Dr tiquarie, a religious honest and learned man : 
 Hatcher, who appears in the Cambridge he dyed in Lincolnshire." 
 Calendar as Regius Professor of Physic /3. It will be observed that I , have con- 
 between 1554 — 1564. (See also Baker MSS. jectured above that the Caius Gospels came 
 29.) He collected a catalogue of all the into the possession of the Friars Minors 
 Provosts, Fellows and Scholars of the "King's at Oxford along with other books left them 
 CoUedge of the blessed Virgin Mary and S' by Grossteste. The supposition is not in 
 Nicholas in the Universitie of Cambridge." itself at all an improbable one. My prin- 
 This Catalogue is preserved in Caius Library cipal reason for the suggestion lies in the 
 (No. 173) apparently with some additions, fact that the Caius Gospels contain an inter- 
 Hatcher himself is described in it, in an linear Latin gloss to the difficult words which 
 entry under date 1555, as follows : is in the same hand as will be found to have 
 
 " Thomas Hatcher, sonne of D' Hatcher, been at work upon a beautiful Greek Psalter 
 
 the Queenes Ma"" Physicke Professour in with Canticles in the Library of Corpus 
 
 this Universitie, went first to Graves Inne Christi (No. 480), which belongs to the col- 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 21 
 
 The first part of the book is a history of animals and is followed 
 
 by Alex. Necham de laude Sapientiae. It contains at the end : 
 
 " istum librum contulit ff. lohs. de Milham Reveredo Sacr. Theol. 
 
 doct. I oh. Zouch. 
 
 Marie for thyn holy grace 
 
 Help ffrere John Milam in every place." 
 
 The name of John Aynsworth is added amongst the owners 
 on account of notes made by him in the book. 
 
 John Zowch, the first owner after the original scribe, was 
 29th Provincial of the Franciscans in England and bishop of 
 Llandaff He died in 1423 \ 
 
 We now pass on to add one or two more details with regard 
 to the academic and monastic positions occupied by Brinkley. 
 There is some doubt about the time at which he became a .doctor 
 of divinity, as will .be seen in the following record of the event 
 of his incorporation into the University of Oxford in Wood's 
 Fasti Oxon. p. 670. 
 
 " 1524. June. Richard Brynckley, a Minorite or Franciscan 
 Fryer, Dr of Divinity of Cambridge and as our publick register 
 
 lection of Matthew Parker. Other marginal 
 hands may be identified in the two books. 
 Now there is some reason for referring the 
 Corpus Psalter to Grossteste and his com- 
 panions, though I cannot exactly recall the 
 reasoning by which that result is arrived at. 
 Those who care to work the matter out will 
 find a slip of vellum pasted in the beginning 
 of the Corpus Psalter intimating (in a hand 
 of Parker's time T) that " Hie liber script per 
 eu qui sc. ypomnisticon grece." If any per- 
 plexity should arise in reference to this the 
 Hypomnesticon in question may be found 
 in the University Library (Ff i. 24). This 
 beautiful book (cent, xi.) contains also other 
 important matter, such as the two books of 
 Chronicles (Holmes' Cod. 60) and Gross- 
 teste's copy of the Testaments of the Twelve 
 Patriarchs. 
 
 1 There is another Caius MS. which I 
 suspect to be Franciscan, but have not been 
 able to examine. It is numbered 325, and 
 contains at the beginning Formae procedendi 
 in visitatione loh. episc. Landavensis, whom 
 
 1 suppose to be again John Zowch. 
 
 There are five or six other MSS. in the 
 British Museum, which should be examined 
 in connexion with the foregoing. They may 
 help us much in our analysis. I believe these 
 books are all said to have come from the 
 Grey Friars of Canterbury. Now I want to 
 know vwhether this is owing to inscriptions 
 of the form "fratrum minorum conventus 
 Cant." which I know to be in the first of 
 those on my list : are they certainly Canter- 
 bury MSS., or may they be from Cambridge? 
 For the Canterbury Franciscans seem to 
 have been a very insignificant people, as far 
 as I am able to judge from the books on 
 monastic literature. The books are 
 
 Reg: 3, C. XI. 
 Reg. 2, D. XXIV. 
 Reg. 3, D. 2. 
 Reg. 3; D. IV. 
 Reg. 3, E. IX., 
 
 and query whether Reg. 8, E. ill. described 
 later on belongs to the same group or not ? 
 
22 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 saith General Minister of the Minorites throughout England. 
 His supplication which was granted simpliciter and his incor- 
 poration are set down in the said register under this year (1524), 
 yet perusing Cambridge tables containing the names of such who 
 were admitted doctors of that University, he is put down there 
 under the year 1527 as being then admitted D of D. In the 
 said Generalship or Provincialship he succeeded Dr Henry 
 Standish, and was succeeded by Steph. Baron, a Cambridge man, 
 Confessor to K. Henry VHI. and an eminent preacher of his 
 time." 
 
 The difficulty suggested by Wood I do not see my way 
 to resolve, nor is it important for the matter in hand. It is 
 quite sufficient to know that he was Doctor of Divinity about 
 the time mentioned by Wood. His office as provincial minister 
 would take him frequently from Cambridge to Oxford, London, 
 Reading or any places where his order had established itself The 
 evidence derived from his books shews him both at Cambridge 
 and Oxford. 
 
 There are numerous monastic catalogues of the various 
 Wardens of the Franciscans in Cambridge, Oxford, &c., and of 
 the Provincial Ministers in England, which last give Brinkley's 
 name. The following is the conclusion of the list of English 
 Provincials which is given in Supplementum Historiae . Provinciae 
 Angliae, bound up with the Syllabus to Wadding's History of 
 the Franciscan Order (Duaci, 1671). 
 
 48. Henricus Standish Doct. Cantab. Ep. Asaphensis 1520. Egregie scripsit 
 contra Erasmi versionem novi Testamenti. 
 
 49. Richardus Brinkley: jacet Cantabrigiae ubi erat Doctor, in variis variorum 
 temporum ministrorum catalogis ponitur ultimus, hoc est ante unionem. Hie 
 videtur catalogis usque ad an. 1517 quandototus ordo inversus est, tunc ex 
 observantia totius Angliae constitutus est Proviricialis in Capitulo generalissimo. 
 
 50. Stephanas Baronus. 
 
 51. Johannes Forrestus. 
 
 When we reflect that Brinkley studied at Cambridge, graduated 
 there in the highest theological honours, was in authority there and 
 elsewhere at the time of the monastic break-up, and there was buried, 
 we cannot be far wrong in referring the Caius Psalter at a very 
 early period in its history to the Franciscan Convent in Cambridge, 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 23 
 
 and in fact we have as yet no evidence of any moment that enables 
 us to place it outside Cambridge at all. And if this should be 
 demonstrated for the Caius Psalter, and if the Leicester Codex, 
 written by the same hand, can be traced back as far as we yet know 
 its history to a remarkable Cambridge man of the sixteenth century, 
 is it not in the highest degree likely that the Leicester Codex also 
 has been obtained from the same source ? 
 
 But in order to make assurance doubly sure, we will set Brinkley 
 on one side and make a complete demonstration that the Caius 
 Psalter was actually bound in the Grey Friars Convent in Cam- 
 bridge, and we will fix a time-limit which must be a good many years 
 anterior to the time when it was thus bound. 
 
 V. The binding of the Caius Psalter placed and approximately 
 
 dated. 
 
 At the end of the Caius Psalter there is pasted over the board 
 cover a double leaf of vellum which once formed a somewhat rude 
 account book of a monastic foundation, with the receipts for masses 
 said and record of gifts brought in by the mendicants. In order to 
 make this interesting document accessible to the reader in its 
 original form, I have appended a photograph of it, which happily is 
 easier to read in some respects than the original. Our business is 
 to determine from the receipts the monastery to which they refer, for 
 we may regard it as certain that in this monastery the bookbinding 
 and perhaps the writing of the MS. was done. 
 
 The following is the transcription of the two leaves, to which 
 I have for convenience added the necessary numbering of the lines 
 for reference and some notes by way of elucidation. 
 
 Leaf A : left-hand leaf. 
 
 1. Hardessol pro aia dne Amisie de Scalers 1 marc in pitancia. 
 
 2. [fjesto see Anne fr. Johes expendidit in pitancia xvii d. ob. 
 
 3. Willm Scherwid xvid. id. Radulphu Child xii d. item 
 
 4. fm Tbomam Ely ob honorem see Anna. xviid. 
 
 5. quinta...per frem Johan Weting pro aia Willi. Flicham ad 
 
 6. [su]am pitancia xii. d. item per frem Johan de Ely xvi s. 
 
24 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 7. in dmca post f[estu]m see Anna pro aia Johis Baldoc in pi 
 
 8. tajncia xl d et ultra Weting solvit v d. 
 
 9. f[eri]a scda post in pitancia per frem Roger Walsham xxvd. 
 
 10. ...e sequenti fer°. tercia per frem Willm de Sco Yvone xxxd. 
 
 11. ...e fr^. qui[nt]a pro pitancia per frm Martinium Leuerington xlii d. 
 
 12. Primus compotus post finalem compotum sabb[at]o in f[est]o sco Dominici 
 confessoris. 
 
 13. Dominica post f[estu]m s. Dmci in pitanciam pro a[nima] Johis Sauston 
 
 14. I marcha. per Barburwm. 
 
 15. in pitancia per Johem Lywins i marc per Hardissell. 
 
 16. in pitancia per dmn Bawdewyn de sco Jorgio i mark. 
 
 17. pro statu Agn et pro animabus Willi et Rogeri in pitancia xxxd. 
 
 18. pro statu dni Johis Godewyk. viii s. viii d. 
 
 1 9. pro aia Viennae in pitancia xl d. 
 
 20. in pitancia per fF. Willm Blibur xl d. 
 
 21. ...Nic. Martyn in pitancia pro anima patris sui vs. per Badbur. 
 
 22.' ...jus compotus sabbato in octabio sci Ludowyc episcopi et conf[essoris]. 
 
 23.. in pitancia pro aia Galfd de Massingham vii s. vi d. 
 
 24. in pitancia pro aia fF nri Galfd de Massingham iiii s. 
 
 25. in pitancia per procuratorem xl d. 
 
 26. Marger[ia] Buteler pro anima Will expendit viii s. viii d per Plumstede. 
 
 27. Joh. Morle pro statu Rogeri Madekok 
 
 xxis. iiii d. 
 
 Leaf B : right-hand. 
 
 1. dns Jhs pro aiabus dni de Seschalers et dne... 
 
 2. et mortuis quibusdam teneris xxiiii sol et iiiid. per Hardesle. 
 
 3. pro aia fris Rogeri de Albi xii sol et i d. 
 
 4. dns Johis Cortyn vi s. et viii d. 
 
 5. Maria de Plumstede xvs. viii d. ob. 
 
 6. dna abbatissa de Deney misit conventui unum porcuni. 
 
 7. de dono dne de Audele pro aia viri sui dimidiam marcam per Mar[tin], 
 
 8. dna abatissa de Deney. unum porcum. 
 
 9. in una pitancia. xi s. viii d. per gardianum. 
 
 10. fr Johes Marbilzor promisit conventui ceplas ficinum et 
 
 11. unum cade allecium. 
 
 12. quartus compotus et finalis vi kl. julii in crastino sci Johannis. 
 
 13. baptistae anno di m°ccclxvi. 
 
 14. pro statu Margarete Boteler et a Willi viri sui x sol. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 25 
 
 15. dns Jhs Josphef pro aia dne de Scalers xx s. 
 
 16. primus compotus post finalem pridie kl. augusti. 
 
 17. Margerie de Saustone pro aia Jhs viri sui xv sol. vid. 
 
 18. burgenses de Lenia. xld. 
 
 19. f. Nicholaus Ramisseya. ii sol. vi d. 
 
 20. fr Johs Wetinge. ii. sol. 
 
 21. f. Robertus Plumstede. xvis. 
 
 22. Margareta Boteler pro statu suo et pro aia viri sui 
 
 23. et pro quibusdam teneris ix sol. ix d. ob per Plumstede. 
 
 24. Tertius compotus factus in vigil Simonis et Jude. 
 
 25. prior gardianus expendit in pitancia feriarum v ante festum omnium 
 sanctorum i marc. 
 
 26. Quartus compotus in vigil see Barbare. 
 
 27. per magistrum in pitancia xd. 
 
 28. Margareta Bussal. vs. xd. per Hardesl. 
 
 29. Blaunpeyn. xxx d. per Wetinge. 
 
 The following explanatory remarks may be made on the text of 
 this document : 
 
 A. I. The letters at the commencement are the remains of the name of 
 brother Hardessell, who appears again in line A. 15 and again as collecting 
 money from or for the same family in B. i, 2, also B. 28. The name of the 
 lady whose soul is to be prayed for appears again in B. i and 15; spelling 
 in either case follows the law of liberty. 
 
 A. 2. The name after Johannes is inserted, apparently with an abbreviation 
 over the line. I have not been able to read it. But I think it is meant for 
 an abbreviation of the name in A. 14. The terms "in pitancia," "in pitanciam" 
 which occur so constantly throughout the document imply the common fund 
 of the convent. "C^" is, of course, one halfpenny. 
 
 A. 3. The word per seems to have ■ been cut away. 
 
 A. 5. I am unable to read the second word in the line. 
 
 A. 10. de Sco Yvone = oi St Ives. 
 
 A. 12. compotus = computus, and so throughout. 
 
 A. 14. Barburwm is apparently the same as Badbur in line 21: I take it to 
 be the modern Babraham, a village near Cambridge which enjoys exceptional 
 varieties of spelling in early records. 
 
 A. 21. There are two or three other letters to decipher at the beginning 
 of the line. 
 
 A. 26. Margaret Butler appears again in B. 14 and B. 22. She seems to 
 have been in brother Plumstede's collecting district. 
 
 A. 27. Only parts of this and the next line are legible. 
 
 B. 6. The Abbess of Denny, a foundation of Minoresses near Cambridge, 
 
 UC, 4 
 
26 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 of which more presently. The reverse of the leaf which is occasionally legible 
 shews as well as line B. 8 that she continued to send her pigs to the convent 
 with praiseworthy regularity. 
 
 B. 10. More provisions promised to the convent; apparently an osier-basket 
 (fiscina) of sprats (cepula is a diminutive form of cepia and implies some sort 
 of small fish) together with a barrel of herrings (alec - herring : more exactly, I 
 think, salted herrings). For the term 'cade' and the value of this part of the 
 gift see the following entry in Domestic Papers of Henry VIII. Vol. in. Part 2, 
 
 P- 1403. 
 
 I cade of herrings = loj'. 
 
 B. 18. Lenia = Lynn; the name of the borough of Lynn is spelt variously 
 Lena (Domesday-book) and, I think, Lema. 
 
 A reference to the accounts of the borough of Lynn, which go back to a very 
 early period and are in fine preservation and nearly perfect, ought to decide at 
 once the convent to which the sum of forty pence was paid in the year 1366. 
 Through the courtesy of the town-clerk of the borough, I was enabled to make 
 some search for the item, but on the first occasion unsuccessfully, and my depar- 
 ture from England made a second visit impossible. 
 
 B. 29. The name Blaunpeyn is, as I shall shew presently, that of a monk 
 of the Franciscan order. 
 
 On the reverse of these two leaves, when detached from the 
 boards, a good reader could make out much more of a similar kind 
 to the above. I only note here, two pigs from Denny Abbey ; also 
 the names of brothers Roger Wallsham, Robert Plumstede, and 
 Thomas Beri (Bury). There is a further entry of 16 shillings for 
 the soul of Amisie de Seschalers, whose progress in the other world 
 seems to have been peculiarly remunerative to the brethren. 
 
 I notice also on a slip of the vellum which has been turned in by 
 the binder the entries, 
 
 ...per Thomam Clopton i mar. 
 in piltancia per frem Johem Badburw...xxxis. vid. 
 For the latter see line A. 2. 
 
 Now in reviewing this very interesting piece of vellum, the first 
 thing that strikes one with reference to the monastery in question 
 is that it must have been located somewhere in the Eastern counties 
 of England. Almost all the names bear this upon them : we find 
 Ely, Baldock, Walsham, St Ives, Babraham, Massingham, Plum- 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 27 
 
 stead, Denny, Sawston, Lynn, Ramsey and Bury. All of these 
 names belong to Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge, Hunts and Hertford- 
 shire. And therefore we may be sure that we are dealing with a 
 monastery in the Eastern counties. 
 
 Several of the other names that occur, which are not properly 
 geographical, belong to families of whom the Eastern counties 
 preserve traces. (I do not refer to the Audley family, inasmuch as 
 they did not settle at Audley End, near Walden, until the time when 
 Henry VHI. got possession of the great Benedictine Abbey there, 
 and bestowed it on one of those who did not further his ends for 
 nought, however necessary in some regards church reforms might be.) 
 
 Take for instance the name of Clopton ; William de Clopton 
 was Abbot and one of the principal benefactors of Thorney Abbey 
 in Huntingdonshire; he died in 1322. 
 
 The family were also found in the parish of Walden in Essex ; 
 in the 19th year of Edward H., i.e. a.d. 1326, Thomas Clopton was 
 seised of a capital messuage and six score acres of land in Cheping 
 Walden, and held also eight acres of the Abbot of Walden by the 
 service of two shillings. Part of these lands in Walden parish 
 are still called Cloptons. The date is only forty years before that 
 of our account-book, and nothing is therefore more likely than that 
 the Thomas Clopton whose name appears on the turned-in slip of 
 vellum is this very man or an immediate connexion. It will be 
 observed that he is not a member of the monastery, or we should 
 most likely have hsidfrairem before his name. 
 
 The Butler family also exercised manorial rights in the same 
 parish at an early period, although at the time of our document 
 they do not seem to have held property in or near Walden, and in 
 any case the name is too common to base an argument upon. Nor 
 is it necessary to attempt to do so, since we are able to point out 
 the very William Butler to whom reference is made. The following 
 note in Dugdale's Baronage, i. 595, relates to a William Butler who 
 died in 1362 (four years before the monastic entry of payments for 
 his soul) : " This William took to wife Margaret the wife of Richard 
 Fitz-alan earl of Arundell and died on Saturday next preceding 
 Christmas Day in 35* Edward iii ... leaving William his son and 
 heir xxx years of age." 
 
 4—2 
 
28 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 But there is not much need for an elaborate scrutiny of county 
 histories when we turn to the simple solution of our problem afforded 
 by the Abbess of Denny and her recurring pig. In the nature 
 of things at that time a periodic pig could not have been sent a long 
 distance. And we may therefore enquire whither the Abbess of 
 Denny was most likely to send this token of monastic attachment. 
 Would it be Ramsey, Thorney, Bury St Edmunds, Walden, or one 
 of the numerous religious foundations in Cambridge ? The nearest 
 of the places mentioned is Cambridge. Denny Abbey, the remains 
 of which are still to be seen, built into more modern and secular 
 architecture, is situated close to the village of Waterbeach, on the 
 Great Eastern Railway, and about seven miles from Cambridge to- 
 wards Ely. We may take 1342 as the date of its foundation, i.e. 
 of Denny Abbey as distinct from the still earlier foundation of 
 Waterbeach Abbey, which it absorbed. Its first abbess is Katherine 
 de Bolwyk, and it must have been either this lady or one of her im- 
 mediate successors that was engaged in the hog-industry. 
 
 The probability that the pigs went to Cambridge is increased 
 when we note that Denny Abbey, representing the poor Clares or 
 Minoresses in this district, is necessarily in close connexion with the 
 Franciscan convent at Cam.bridge, in a certain sense subordinate 
 to them, and certainly in frequent communication. Probably from 
 thence they obtained a soul-priest when they established a little 
 chantry in connexion with their abbey. But perhaps nothing 
 illustrates so well the relations between the two convents as the fact 
 that we find them getting possession of the patronage of the rectory 
 of Eltisley (15th June, 15 12) and using as their agent in the matter 
 our friend Richard Brinkley himself \ 
 
 Our suspicion that we are to trace the Caius Psalter back to 
 the Franciscan convent in Cambridge is confirmed by the entry 
 in line A. 25, "inpitancia per procuratorem." ■ Now a proctor is 
 not a recognised part of a monastery, but he is and has been a 
 ■leading feature in Cambridge University from the beginning until 
 now; and more than this there were especial reasons why the 
 proctor of the University should make a payment to the Fran- 
 ciscans. For at the time in question, or certainly not much later, 
 
 ' Clay's History of Waterbeach, p. 108. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 29 
 
 there was no room available for University Commencements like 
 the Church of the Grey Friars : and the University accounts still 
 shew traces of the payments made to carpenters for erecting in 
 the church the stages necessary for public exercises. Further than 
 this, when in the reign of Richard II., i.e. a.d. 1388, the parliament 
 was held in Cambridge, it was in the church of the Grey Friars 
 that the assembly met ; which shews that upon public occasions 
 their buildings (which at first were only a few sheds knocked 
 together by the day's labour of a single carpenter, but soon changed 
 to a greater dignity of architecture) were in demand to meet needs 
 that no other of the Abbeys or Colleges could supply\ 
 
 Another trace of the Grey Friars will be found in the reference 
 to the festival of St Ludovicus, bishop and confessor. It may be 
 asked why this should be drawn attention to rather than the name 
 of St Dominic, which occurs in the same document ? St Louis 
 was a Franciscan of comparatively recent canonization at the time 
 of our document. The day of his commemoration is Aug. 19, the 
 year of his canonization 13 17. It may well be doubted whether 
 within this period his name would become a leading one in the 
 calendar. But if anywhere, certainly among the Friars-minors, who 
 looked upon him with reverence on account of the royal blood 
 that flowed under his grey coat. The following extract from a 
 Franciscan MS. (Mus. Britt. Cotton, Vitellius, F. xii., printed in 
 Monumenta Franciscana, p. 540) will shew this more clearly : 
 
 Procedente tempore diversorum regum filii ordinem minorum intraverunt, inter 
 quos est unus frater Ludovicus, nunc sanctus et canonizatus, filius Caroli regis 
 Siciliae et haeres regni illius ; postmodum episcopus Tolosanus. 
 
 It will be noticed that an octave of days in our account book 
 is given to St Louis. 
 
 Nor are there wanting illustrations from the Minorite Order 
 which bear upon some of the families that are here mentioned. The 
 following instance may be given : In line B. 29 we find a sum of 
 money collected by brother Weting from Blaunpeyn. This last 
 name is so peculiar that I could hardly believe I had read it cor- 
 rectly. But a reference to Pitseus, De illust. Angliae Script. 322, 
 
 1 Baker-Mayor, Hist. St John's Coll. p. 38. 
 
30 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 shews the following entry among the writers of the Franciscan 
 order : 
 
 Michael Blaunpainus vulgo magister cognominatus, natione Anglus, patria 
 Cornubiensis, apud suos ab annis pene puerilibus ob egregiam indolem bonis 
 praeceptoribus erudiendus tradebatur, et post prima Grammatices imbibita rudi- 
 menta, missus Oxonium deinde Parisios, utrobique multa industria, miraque ingenii 
 foelicitate variam collegit scientiarum supellectilem. Prae caeteris autem se dedit 
 elegantiae linguae Latinae, fuitque inter praecipuos sui temporis poetas per 
 Angliam potissimum et Galliam numeratus. Hunc subinde citat Textor in Cornu- 
 copia sub nomine Michaelis Anglici. Suppetebat etiam illi non vulgaris histo- 
 riarum cognitio. Itaque secundum politam qua insigniter instruqtus erat eruditio- 
 nem in lucem emisit; 
 
 Historiarum Normanniae. Librum unum. 
 
 Contra Henricum Abrincensem: versu. Librum unum. (Incipit) "Archi- 
 
 poeta vide quod non sit." (extat) MS in bibliotheca Lumleiana. 
 Epistolarum et Carminum. Librum unum. 
 Claruit anno Messiae 1250 sub Henrici tertii regno. 
 
 I have no means of determining whether Pits' account of this 
 writer is to be relied upon : it is of course possible that he is dated 
 a century too early : but in any case the name is a Franciscan 
 one, and the family to which he belonged may well have been 
 associated with the Grey Friars. 
 
 We conclude, then, that the Cuius Psalter was put into its 
 present binding in the Convent of the Grey Friars in Cambridge, 
 and that in the course of the work the binder employed a leaf of 
 vellum^ from an account-book belonging to the monastery, marked 
 with the date 1366. 
 
 From the occurrence of the same names on both sides of the 
 doubled leaf we infer that the left-hand leaf is not much earlier in 
 its accounts than the dated half on the right. But what length of 
 time elapsed until the destruction of the account-book from the 
 time when it was written, we have no means of determining ; 
 a priori it does not look as if we could refer the book-binding 
 to as early a period as the fourteenth century. 
 
 It will be noticed that we have only argued as to the 
 place and date of the binding of the Psalter, we have drawn 
 no conclusion of a positive character with regard to the writing 
 of the MS. If the book were brought to Cambridge from else- 
 where, it would probably travel unbound ; a letter of Adam de 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 31 
 
 Marisco' illustrates this point where, in asking for a copy of Aris- 
 totle to be forwarded, he recommends that the covers be removed 
 and the book placed in a waxed cloth. And if it was worth while 
 to do this with a book that was already bound, no one can assume 
 that it did not occur before a book had reached the stage of unity. 
 We see this also in the Leicester Codex, which, from its lost quires 
 and its rearranged matter, must have had vicissitudes of the kind 
 referred to. But our examination leads us to this, that whether 
 the two books in question were written in Cambridge or not they 
 were probably both in the Franciscan convent about the same 
 time, since we definitely trace one as being bound there, and 
 apparently in Cambridge hands ever after, and the other, the 
 companion volume, is found in Cambridge hands as far back as 
 we have yet succeeded in tracing it. 
 
 In concluding this portion of the enquiry we may add a few 
 points of interest with regard to the Grey Friars convent itself, 
 which we begin to see to have been a true home of learning down 
 to the very time of its dissolution. The building occupied the 
 position which is now held by Sidney Sussex College ; but before 
 that foundation was established, the buildings had been wrecked 
 and the stones and timber carried off to form a part of the 
 king's academical reconstruction known as Trinity College. It 
 is difficult to see what object was to be gained by pulling a 
 college down on one side of the street and rebuilding it on the 
 other ; and one cannot help wishing for Fate to have bestowed 
 on us a little less of Trinity College and a little more or longer 
 of the Grey Friars. In that case, too, the foundation of Sidney 
 Sussex would have been united, as was the intention of the foun- 
 dress, with Clare Hall ; another result that would have been 
 academically desirable. But we must not attempt to write a history 
 of Cambridge as it might or should have been ; and for Cambridge 
 as it was, it is sufficient to refer to the work of Mr J. W. Clark 
 on the Architectural History of the University. 
 
 The good reputation of the Cambridge Friars may perhaps 
 be inferred from the fact that their surrender was delayed until 
 the year 1538; the document thereof is not without interest, arid 
 
 ' See Monumenta Franciscana. 
 
32 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 I print it from the Records of the Augmentation office (Deeds 
 of Surrender of Monasteries, No. 44). 
 
 Cambridge Grey Friars. 
 Domus fratrum minorum Cantebr. in com. Cantebr. vulgariter diet, the Gray 
 Frers in Cantebr. in com. Cantebr. (30 Henry VIII.)'. 
 
 Willielmus Whyte Gardianus. 
 
 Thomas Dysse Doctor. 
 
 Robertas Whight Doctor. 
 
 Joannes Fakum Vicegardianus. 
 
 Joannes Donne. Willielmus Thurbane. 
 
 Laurentius Draper. Gulielmus Cateryke. 
 
 Gulielmus Cressy. Joannes Arnold. 
 
 Joannes Yonge. Richardus Schaffe. 
 
 Lucas Taylor. Willielmus Mene. 
 
 Thomas Skott. Johannes Brake. 
 
 Johannes Vincent. Willielmus Canon. 
 
 Damascenus Daly. Johannes Cooke. 
 
 Georgius Porrytt. Thomas Gyldartt. 
 
 Joannes Stralen. Matheus Lainson. 
 
 Without Seal. From the Deputy Keeper's 8th Report. 
 
 We may conjecture that the books belonging to the convent 
 were disposed of before the day of surrender. When Leiand visited 
 the place, there were not many of any importance remaining. Some 
 of those which he notes may, I think, yet be found in the libraries 
 of the Cambridge Colleges. They are as follows : 
 Collectanea iv. 16. 
 
 Cantabrigiae. In Biblioteca Franciscanorum. 
 
 Epistolae Roberti Grosstest in numero 127 ex quibus apparet ilium fuisse 
 
 archidiaconum Leycestrensem. (Incipit) Novit sanctitas. 
 Epistola fratris Gulielmi Notingham de obedientia. 
 Epistola Lincolniensis instar libelluli ad Adamum Rufum quod deus prima 
 
 forma et forma omnium. 
 Duo sermones Lincolniensis habiti coram Papa. 
 Ambrosius Ausbertus. 
 
 These five volumes are all that Leiand notes as remainingl 
 We shall now return to the Leicester Codex and examine 
 whether any other directions are open to us by which we may 
 
 1 Day and month left blank. London House he records some fifty or sixty 
 
 ^ In the Oxford Franciscan Library he and a few at Reading, 
 found little besides cobwebs, but in the 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 33 
 
 arrive at a closer knowledge of its history and origin. We shall 
 take up the question of ownership at the point where previous 
 investigations have left it, i.e. with William Chark, and as in 
 Brinkley's case, we will construct a Chark-Library : in this in- 
 stance, however, so much more of Chark's literary and personal 
 history can be arrived at from other sources than from his notes 
 made in his books, that it is best to give a short sketch of his 
 • academical and subsequent life, and then proceed afterwards to 
 the attempted reconstruction of his collection of manuscripts. 
 
 VI. Of William Chark formerly owner of the Leicester Codex. 
 
 It is well known that the Leicester Codex was given to that 
 borough in' 1645 along with other legacies (including books, I 
 suppose) by Thomas Hayne, whose name appears upon the vellum 
 binding with which the MS. is now adorned^ 
 
 Previous to Hayne, it was in the possession, of William Chark, 
 whose name appears in a fine Greek hand on the first page of the 
 MS., as already stated. Edwards (/. t.) gives him as William 
 Clarke, adds the important information that he was possessed of 
 other MSS. of the same class (by which he may, however, mean 
 nothing more than the Montfort Codex) and describes him as 
 " the ejected fellow of Peterhouse." 
 
 A similar mistake as to the name is noted by Dobbin in the 
 Emmanuel College Collation of the Montfort Codex which is 
 supposed to have been made for Walton's Polyglot, for here a 
 corrector has changed the name from Chare into Clark; and it 
 is supposed that from thence the Catalogue of MSS. prefixed to 
 the collation given in the sixth volume of Walton has derived 
 the name of Clerk. It is needful to repeat this in order that 
 
 1 'Edi'^aidiS, Hist, of Libraries,!, y^o. Ed- Fell's edition): it was at one time the 
 wards also gives us the information regard- property of Caesar de Missy in the sale- 
 ing the acquisition by the Town Council of catalogue of whose library a.d. 1776 it is 
 the Collation of the MS. made by Jackson, described as follows : "CoUatio codicis Lei- 
 Tiffin and Gee for Wetstein. According to cestrensis per Rev. J. Jackson adscripta mar- 
 Edwards this was purchased thirty years gine N. T. Graeceimpressi Oxonii 1675. Hoc 
 before his time, and was made in an Oxford est originale e quo variantes lectiones suo 
 Greek Test, of 1685 (1. 1675, it must be N. T. inseruit Wetstenius." 
 
 L. C. 5 
 
34 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 those who have access to collections of MSS. may be on the 
 look-out among the Clerk- or Clark-owned MSS. for additions to 
 the collection which we shall presently give as that of William Chark. 
 
 Now concerning Chark and his expulsion, the details given 
 in works on the New Testament MSS. in general, or on Codd. 
 Leicestrensis and Montfortianus in particular, are sufficiently meagre. 
 Mill describes him rightly, as /caXXiy/jac^tuVaTos and "in Graecis 
 insigniter versatus," to which Dobbin adds, from such a repertory 
 of knowledge as the New Annual Register for 1792(1), that he 
 was mentioned as a distinguished scholar in Queen Elizabeth's time, 
 and suspects that he was probably the same William Chark who 
 was of Peter .House and was expelled the University for heresy (!) 
 in 1572; a remark which is I think carried over by Scrivener 
 into his description of the Leicester Codex, uncertainty and all ! 
 
 And yet Chark was, as far as we have any means of judging, 
 one of the learned men of his time, and measured by the principles 
 which he enunciated and the firmness with which he adhered to 
 them, a central figure in the bright and burning time of transi- 
 tion from the worship of the rude image of authority, which was 
 supposed to have come down in some unexplained manner from 
 Jupiter, to that purer ritual which consists in cherishing for the 
 sake of other men the spark of heavenly flame that burns within 
 the hollowed reed of one's own Individuality. But because it was 
 easy to suppress this great man provided that no time was unduly 
 wasted in justifying the act of condemnation, Chark was deprived 
 of the honourable position which he held among the rising men 
 of his time, and sent out academically 'unhouseled' as far as regards 
 the outward bread of life, and 'unannealed' except for that holy oil 
 of joy which flows down constantly upon those who are elected 
 to think great thoughts and greatly to express them. 
 
 And so it has come about that the name of William Chark is 
 forgotten in Cambridge even in his own College. What then was 
 the terrible charge upon which he suffered the double ejectment 
 from College and University, the heresy which is suggested by 
 Dr Dobbin? Nothing more or less than that he was guilty of the 
 blasphemy against dignities, and did even say that Papacies, Metro- 
 politanisms, and Arch-Priesthoods were the invention of Satan, and 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 35 
 
 that the ministers of the Church were, or ought to be, a fraternity, 
 rather than a hierarchy. This in Great St Mary's, and before the 
 Heads, who might, if such principles were carried further, be 
 (Heaven shield us!) bracketed with the Tails; and in the presence 
 of the clergy with their keen sense that what is said in the corner 
 in the Latin tongue has before now been translated (without 
 authority) upon the house tops and into the vulgar speech that 
 is own brother to Action. 
 
 If he had only said Papacies were of the devil, we might have 
 forgiven him, perhaps even published his sermon, or rewarded him 
 with the privilege, in which ecclesiastical lions were indulging 
 somewhat freely about that time, of roaring again; but to add 
 the Bishops and Archbishops, we in Cambridge cannot abide that: 
 Master Chark, in so saying thou reproachest us also, or mayest 
 do so, before Time is much older! 
 
 In describing briefly this trumpery charge, which deprived not 
 Chark so much as Cambridge, I have thought it would be best 
 to append the documents which passed between the Chancellor, 
 the Vice-Chancellor and the criminal; nothing so well brings out 
 the contrast between the persecutors and the freeman as the 
 perusal successively of the graceful and forcible Latin periods, with 
 an occasional Greek jewel, of Chark and the peevish English in 
 which the Heads of Houses make their senility a memorial to all 
 generations. 
 
 The course of proceeding seems to be as follows : 
 
 Chark preached the fatal sermon on December 5th, 1572; on 
 February 5th following he was expelled both from the University 
 and from St Peter's College (the Vice-Chancellor's letter of 
 December 1 4th has the good taste to speak of him already as 
 ''late fellow of Peterhouse "). To this decree Chark replied in 
 the most dignified manner with the single word "appello," and the 
 case accordingly went before Lord Burghley, the Chancellor of the 
 University. 
 
 The first paper that describes the situation is taken from 
 Matthew Stokys' book\ 
 
 ^ All these documents will be found in tions during the Puritan Period,!. 123 fif. 
 Hey wood and Wright, Cambridge Transac- 
 
 5—2 
 
2,6 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 Stokys . was one of the inferior University Officials who kept 
 copies for himself of the historical documents &c. of the time : 
 he furnishes us with the following : 
 
 6° Decembris : an° 1572 
 
 Magistro Willelmo Charke, collegii divi Petri in Cantebr. Socio, concionanti ad 
 clerum in ecclesia beatae Mariae juxta forum, die Veneris, viz. 5° Decembris, at 
 postridie ejus diei vocato coram magistro Thoma Bynge, legum doctore, vice- 
 cancellario, assidentibus praeposiris collegiorum, scilicet doctoribus Pearne, Hawford, 
 Kelke, Whitgyfte, Chaderton, Harvie, at Hill, magistris Shepherd, Goade et Aldrycha, 
 objectum fuit quod has propositiones in condone sua asseruisset et praedicasset, viz : 
 
 1. Isti status, episcopatus, archiepiscopatus, metropolitanatus, denique papatus 
 a Satana in ecclesiam introducti sunt. 
 
 2. Inter ministros ecclasiasticos non debet alius alio esse superior. 
 
 Et dictus Willelmus Charke coram praedictis vice-cancallario at assidentibus palam 
 et publice agnovit et confessus est sa protulisse et praedicassa praedictas propositiones 
 viz, primam diracta et alteram implicite, praedictis dia, loco, et concione. Et sub^ 
 saquanter facultas et licentia communicandi et confarandi super praamissis cum 
 doctoribus in theologia facta est dicto Willelmo in diem Martis prox. Quo die causa 
 dilata est in diem primum Quadragasimae prox. Et dictus Charka solanniter 
 promisit judicio sisti ad audiendum voluntatem domini vice-cancellarii dicto die, aut 
 duobus diabus antecedentibus aut consequentibus. 
 
 The Vice-Chancellor reports the proceedings to the Chancellor 
 in semi-official manner as follows : 
 
 (From MS, Lansd. No. 15 Art. 64.) 
 To the right honorable and my speciall good lord my lord treasorour. 
 
 To descend to particular doings; on Fryday was sevennight, being the fifth of 
 this monath, one Mr Charka, late fellow of Patarhouse, and now chapplaina to my lord 
 Chaynia, preaching as he was appointed, a sermon ad clerum among other matters 
 which he then uttered, maintained in his discourse these two conclusions : 
 
 1. Episcopatus, archiepiscopatus, metropoHtanatus, patriarchatus et papatus, a 
 Satana in ecclesiam introducti sunt. 
 
 2. Inter ministros ecclesiae non debet alius alio esse superior. 
 
 For the whiche his doctrine, as repugnant to the government of the churche of 
 England established, I caused him, as our statutes require, to be called before me and • 
 the rest of the haaddas, whara he being charged with the points aforesayd did earnestly 
 stand to the defence of the same. It was shewid him what daunger would ensue if he 
 so persisted and therefor he was advised to conferre with better learnid than himself 
 and to heare their judgments ; the whiche that he might doo to his greater profitte, wee 
 graunted him a reasonable space, to consider more diligently of his assertions, and 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 37 
 
 after to yeld up a full resolucion of his mind therein; the time prefixed is Ashe- 
 wednesday next : in the meane while he hath leave to depart. And thus farre have 
 wee hetherto dealt with Chark ; meaning (unles your lordships determinacions shalbe 
 otherwise) to precede with him according to our statutes, which bind him either to 
 revoke his opinion or to be expelled thuniversitie. [The rest of the letter contains 
 an account of search made for vestments and popish trumpery collected by Dr Caius, 
 the greater part of which were burnt, including books !] 
 
 I commend your lordshippe to the AUmightie his tuicion. 
 
 From Clare Hall, the 14th of December, 1572. Your lordshippes unworthie 
 deputie ever at commandement. 
 
 Tho. Bvng. 
 
 We return now to Stokys' book under date 
 
 5° Febr. 
 
 Quibus etc. comparuit Willelmus Charke et iterum interrogatus a domino pro- 
 cancellario de duabus illis propositionibus prius illi objectis et in concione sua habita 
 in ecclesia beatae Marie juxta forum Cantebr 5° Decembr prox. elapso publice 
 declaratis, respondit et fatebatur illas esse ab eo in eadem concione prolatas, priorem 
 videlicet explicite, posteriorem vero implicite ; ita tamen intellixisse posteriorem, ut 
 existimet non debere esse aliquam superioritatem in Ministris ecclesiasticis quoad 
 jurisdictionem. Deinde a domino procancellario saepius requisitus monitus et jussus 
 fuit ut easdem propositiones revocare vellet in eodem loco ubi eas docuit proximo 
 videlicet die Dominico, secundo vel tertio ; quod ille penitus recusavit : unde dominus 
 procancellarius cum assensu praefectorum coUegiorum viz. doctorum Pearne, Hawford, 
 Kelke, May, Chaderton, Harvye et Ithell tunc praesentium, necnon assensu doctoris 
 Whitegyfte, magistrorum Shepherd, Goade, et Aldrich tunc absentium, sed alias, viz. 
 29 Janu. proxime praeterito committentium voces, sufTragia et assensum sua domino 
 vice-cancellario ad finiendum juxta discretionem suam et statuta academiae causam 
 motam contra dominum Willelmum Charke, pronuntiavit dictum Willelmum Charke 
 incidisse in poenam statuti Universitatis praedictae in ea parte facti et ideo exclu- 
 dendus a collegio suo et Universitate exulandum : et sic sententia sua ilium a 
 collegio suo exclusum et Universitate expulsum declaravit. A qua sententia dictus 
 Charke appellavit per verbum appello tantum. Cui appellation! non deferendum 
 dominus judicavit, turn quia in confessum lata est sententia, nee ulla causa appellandi 
 fuit pro Charke allegata aut appellationi conjuncta sive apposita, tum quia alias in 
 consimili causa judicatum est appellationi non esse deferendum, quoties sententia 
 feratur per dominum procancellarium cum assensu conjudicum suorum, viz. majoris 
 partis praefectorum collegiorum. 
 
 Concordat cum originali. Ita testor, 
 
 Mattheus Stokys. 
 
 Notarius puMicus. 
 
 The University having thus summarily refused the right of 
 appeal to Chark, the latter wrote to Lord Burghley as follows: 
 
38 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 (From MS. Lansd. No. i6, Art. 33.) 
 
 To the right honorable the Lord Burleigh, lord highe treasorer and one of h^r 
 majesties honorable privie councell. 
 
 Academia tua (Cecihe, vir honoratissime) me totidem jam annos-aluit, alumnum 
 non ingratum, quot te habuit Anglia primarium reipublicae virum. Nuper vero 
 eadem me, quam ego tum calamitatem primam accepi, publice in exilium ejecit, 
 luctuosum mihi et criminosum nonnihil ecclesiae Dei. Ejus vero causam exilii 
 procancellarius tuus ad te et quidam collegiorum praefecti detulerunt, ut aditus esset 
 ad id, quod, ut illi juste fecerint, ego tamen non dicam injuste sed haud scio an 
 indigne patiar. Nam ut vere tibi et breviter exponam facti conditionisque meae 
 rationem, cum me esse non dissimulo qui, argumentis e Scriptura et externarum 
 ecclesiarum exemplo adductus, aliquid abesse putem, quo ecclesia nostra, nuper e 
 tenebris vindicata, propius ad splendorem ■KpwTormov xapaKT^poi possit accedere ; quod 
 si quando concedet Deus, (concedet autem, ut spero, suo tempore') facilius erit postea 
 eandem sartam tectam (ut dicitur) conservare. Sed banc opinionem meam et aliorum, 
 cum non ignorem periculose in concionibus coram imperita multitudine promulgari, 
 quia aliquid habet et plebi novum et ab institutis reipublicae alienum, scientiam 
 veritatis mihi reservavi, et ab ejus in concionibus meis promulgatione studiosissime 
 semper abstinui. Caeterum in senatu private et sermone Latino, majorem me 
 putabam posse libertatem usurpare ; ideoque in academia (id est) in doctissimorum 
 et sapientissimorum virorum corona, sententiam meam in ejusmodi rebus liberius 
 explicabam. Quo facto nescius tenebar crimine violatae legis, in judicium vqcatus, 
 qui in causa mea judices erant ex sanctione legis non solum aquae et ignis mihi 
 usuram interdicebant, quibus vivimus, sed et literarum, quibus bene vivimus. Ego 
 appellabam, et his literis meis supplex appello aequitatem et bonitatem tuam, in quo 
 uno spes mihi rehnquatur illius loci recuperandi in quo mihi conceditur tanquam in 
 rerum praestantissimarum mercatura vitam propagate. Cum igitur ad tranquillitatem 
 ecclesiae, in maxima opinionis meae irXr;po<^opia semper tacuerim, si illud unum factum 
 excipias; cum statuam deinceps tacere; cum denique levius deliquerim quod Latine 
 sententiam meam dixerim : peto a te ut quem illi a/cpt^oStKaitos ejecerint,, tu velis 
 ImtiKMi quasi jure postliminii restituere; neque cum haec peto, eo pertinet petitio mea, 
 ut auctoritas tua intercedendo illorum factum rescindat, quod tamen potes concedere ; 
 sed hoc a te pro incredibili tua erga academiae tuae clientes bonitate peto, ut literis 
 tuis ab academiae praefectis petere veUs, ut me restituant, protinus ejiciendum, si vel 
 pacem ecclesiae vel reipublicae vel academiae violavero. Hoc si concedas, qui jam 
 ignominioso Homeri versu did possim dcfip-^Tuip, ddifi.uTTO's, dvicmo's, recuperata 
 civitate felix me abdam in bibliothecam meam, Deo KaSSwa/^ii/ et reipublicae dabo 
 operam : te vero, (lectissime cancellarie) quem semper multis nominibus colui, 
 colam deinceps pluribus, et assidiie : maxime hac precationis formula ut te Deus 
 patrocinio tueri velit sempiterno. Amen. 
 
 Tuus crvv Tw 6e(3 ad omnia paratissimus. 
 
 GuL. Charcus. 
 
 1 Concessit et concedet, frater Charce. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 39 
 
 The following is the reply of the Heads to a letter. of enquiry 
 addressed to them concerning Chark. 
 
 (MS. Lansd. No. 16, Art. 34.) 
 
 To the right honorable and our singular good lord the lorde Burghlie, lorde 
 threzurar of England, and Chauncellor of thuniversitie of Cambridge. 
 
 Our duties in most humble maner to your honour remembryd; your lordship's 
 lettres wrytten in the behalf of Mr Charke have made us all not a litle perplexed; 
 partlye for the boldnes of hym, who in so notorious a faulte, and manifest breach 
 of statute, woulde attempte to procure your lordship's favor ; but most of all for 
 that we are herebye brought in some dowbte of your lordships good lykynge of our 
 proceedings in that cause; whereof to rendre a just accompt and that your lord- 
 ship maye therbie the easelier judge what lenitie hathe been used on our partes 
 towards the said Charke, contrarie to his reporte, as it semyth, may it please your 
 lordship to be advertised of the whole matter from the begynyng. 
 
 First, omitting the great expectacion of many longe before hys sermon, raysed 
 as maye probabley be thought by some speach given out by hym concernyng 
 thoes thynges whereby he would intreate; having also his singuler confidence used 
 in the whole action and utterance of his sermon : even at that tyme when he was 
 called before us, besides the obstinate defending of his errors, he spared not in 
 presence to overthwart divers of the heades in very unseemlie maner, and with 
 taunting wordes. Nevertheless bearyng with his want of discrecion beyonde his 
 desert, and seeking to allure hym by gentle perswasions we thought good he should 
 severallie be communyd with by three or fower of our companye. After which 
 conference, though they had litle prevailed with hym, yet that he shoulde not thynke 
 hymselfe to streightlie dealt with, we graunted hym more than seven weekes space 
 to consyder throughlie of his groundes, and after good advisement to yeld his aunsyr 
 upon the same; giving hym further to understande howe we could doo none other- 
 wise than the statute required yf he should persiste in his conceyved opinions. At 
 the tyme apointed wee founde hym nothinge altered. Howbeit styll wishing his 
 good conformitie and meaning raither to reduce him charitablye, then sodainlye to 
 cut hym of, wee offered that yf he would but onlie promisse, upon better delibera- 
 cioun, to revoke his assertions, he should be respeited for the performance thereof 
 till after Easter; which for that before us all he utterlie refused to do, it was con- 
 cluded with one consente, that he should incurre the payne of the statute ; that ys 
 to lose both his college and also thuniversitie; now yf this punishment had been 
 enjoyned hym onlie by our arbitraments and not by statute, yet his demerites being 
 such, as we have declared and he cannot denie, he could not justlie have com- 
 plained of over much severitie. But seeing we have doon nothynge of any private 
 consyderacion in this cause, but our sentence hath been whoUe directed by her 
 majesties Statutes, delivered unto us, as a rule to guyde us, and wherewith to dis- 
 pense is utterlie forbidden us, we muche muse what colour of defence he can seeme 
 to pretende. And suerlye how necessarie it ys that we have suche statutes and namelie 
 
40 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 that one concerning preachers', the malice of theas times dothe easelie shewe. For 
 since Charke hath broched theis untimelie contentions, others have ventured to 
 contynewe the same, wherby the myndes of some are so incensed, that in manye 
 colledges they studie and devise onlie how to moleste and disquiet their governours ; 
 their drifte as it ys well knowen, being nothynge els but to procure to themselves 
 a licentious libertie; wherein yf they may fynde favour through their importune 
 sutes, our state is most miserable of all other^ What poyson lyeth hyd in popu- 
 laritie can not be unknowen to your singular wisdome. Owr labors and travayles in 
 suppressing the same must nedes be joyned with occasions of great envy, which we 
 shall never be able to resiste, unless we be supported by your lordships auctoritie, 
 and others that are placed in the chiefest roumes', speciallie when the difference 
 consisteth in this, whether we shall be borne with for executynge our lawes, or 
 other by indulgence incoraged which breake the same. And yet for Charke, we 
 have further to report that after the delyvery of your lordships lettres, being agayne 
 demanded whether he would yet promisse to retract his former doctrine, he would 
 in no wise yeld thereunto, but made the like refusal as before, adding that he thought 
 your lordships meanyng was not to have hym recante. Wherein as your lordship 
 may well perceave his great presumption, so did he nothyng deceyve the expectacion 
 of some of us who have noted in hym the like hawtee stomake ever sythens we first 
 knewe hym. Thus having dissembled nothyng, but playnlie laid furth the case as it 
 ys, wee are most humblie to crave your lordshipps favorable assistaunce for the 
 repressinge of this and the like enormities wherewith we are so greatly encom- 
 bered at this present that of force we should faynt, weare we not sustayned with 
 the onUe hope* of your lordshipp his good acceptation and countenancing of 
 our dutifull travailles in that behalfe. Even so praying thalmightie long to preserve 
 your honour to our great comfort a.nd the wealth of this state, we humblie take our 
 leave. 
 
 From Cambridge the seconde daye of Marche 1572 your lordshipps ever most 
 humble at commaundement 
 
 Tho, Byng Vice-Chancellor WilHam Chaderton 
 
 Andreas Perne Henr. Harvy 
 
 Edward Hawford Thomas Ithell 
 
 Roger Kelk John Caius 
 
 John May Nicholas Shepperd 
 John Whytgyfte 
 
 The Heads having thus set aside with wounded dignity the 
 suggestions of the Chancellor, Chark wrote him the following 
 charming farewell epistle ; 
 
 1 For how shall they preach, except there just the question at issue. 
 
 be statutes? ■ * Apparently a somewhat free translation 
 
 ' Apparently a reference to i Cor. c. xv. from one of the Psalms. 
 ^ The ' chiefest roumes ' happens to be 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 41 
 
 Mr Charke to Lord Burghley. 
 (From MS. Lansd. No. 16, Art. 35.) 
 
 To the right honorable the Lord Burley, highe treasorour of England, and of hir 
 majesties most honorable privie councell. 
 
 Quid auctoritate literarum tuarum apud academiae tuae praesides profecerim, 
 (honoratissime vir) hi opinor literis suis significarunt : ego autem plane non sine 
 maxima studiorum meorum jactura persentisco. Nam, ne quid gravius dicam, qui in 
 accusationibus levissimus debeam dicere, illi nova et inaudita auctoritatis suae inter- 
 pretatione indictam et sex ad minimum dies admissam appellationem meam, postea 
 affirmabant omnino esse aVpotrSioVva-ov quia etsi a sententia procancellarii liceat, non 
 liceat tamen a decreto praefectorum appellare. Hac sententia auctoritate sua appel- 
 lationis et jure et beneficio me privari putabant; idque non in mea tantum, sed et 
 in aliorum deinceps causa quasi legitimum sit, solenni suo \\ir\^l<Ti>.a.Ti decreverunt. 
 Ego carte quid in hac recutiendum sit, homo in causis forensibus plane hospes, non 
 intelligo ; injuriam et praerogativae tuae minutionem nonnihil suspicor. Sed in 
 petitione mea et literarum tuarum quod repulsam tulerim, eorum factum est perti- 
 nacia, tibi nihilominus (clarissime et lectissime domine) quod causam meam susceperis, 
 gratias ago semperque quoad vixero agam maximas, idque non meo solum, sed et 
 multorum praeterea optimorum virorum nomine, qui te habent in causa sua, quae 
 temporum injuria vim patitur, faciliorem. Quod reliquum est me tibi causaraque meam 
 trado ; qua si amissam civitatem et intermissa studia recuperavero, me novo bene- 
 ficio adjicies ad eorum numerum qui amplissimis tuis beneficiis viventes ac vigentes, 
 praeter laudum tuarum praedicatiojiem, a deo praeterea petunt quotidie, ut pro 
 immensa misericordia sua te conservare velit, quo uno respublica nititur maxima, 
 atqua ut nitatur diutissime bonorum firmamentum concedat Deus. Amen. 
 
 Honoris tui studiosissimus alumnus 
 
 GuL. Charcus. 
 
 And so ended this petty academical persecution. Of Chark's 
 after life we know comparatively little. He obtained, I believe, 
 besides or instead of the Chaplaincy referred to by the heads, 
 some positions of religious trust such as the office of preacher at 
 Lincoln's Inn. Not long after his expulsion, his ardent defence 
 of what he held to be the true Christian doctrine entangled him 
 in a curious controversy, from the account of which we gather a 
 little more information as to the manner of life which then 
 characterized a preacher of somewhat Puritan views. 
 
 Edmund Campian the Jesuit had circulated a polemical tract 
 in defence of his Church and its polity, accompanied by an offer 
 of disputation of some kind or other, which was taken hold of by 
 
 L. c. ' 6 
 
42 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 two ministers, one of them being Meredith Hanmer and the other 
 our friend William Charke. 
 
 Charke's book is entitled as follows : " An answer to a seditious 
 pamphlet lately cast abroade by a Jesuite (E..C.) etc." Lond. 1580. 
 
 Apparently this produced a reply from Campian entitled "A 
 Brief Censure upon two bookes in answer to an offer of disputation." 
 Hereupon Charke wrote "A Replie to a censure against the two 
 answers to a Jesuites seditious pamphlet," Lond. Barker, 1581 
 (some copies 1582): while Meredith Hanmer followed suit with 
 "The Jesuites Banner... with a confutation of a late pamphlet 
 secretly imprinted and entitled : A Brief Censure upon two bookes 
 written in answeare to Mr Campian's offer of Disputation. Com- 
 piled by Meredith Hanmer M. of Arts and Student in Divinity; 
 London, Thomas Dawson and William Vernon and to be solde in 
 Paule's Churchyard at the brazen serpent, 1581." Campian mean- 
 while was thrown into the Tower on a charge of high-treason and 
 Charke with six other divines were sent to hold with him the 
 disputation he had desired. 
 
 These books produced a rejoinder from another Jesuit, Robert 
 ParsonsS who took up the defence of his friend, who had in the 
 meantime gone from this world by the exit-door of the rack and of 
 martyrdom. It is entitled, "A defence to the censure given upon 
 two books of Will. Charke and Meredith Hanmer ministers which 
 they wrote against Mr Edmund Campian, Priest of the Society of 
 Jesus, and against his offer of disputation. Printed 1582^ taken in 
 hand since the death of Campian." In this book the writer handles 
 Chark very roughly: on the title-page he describes how to decline 
 the noun 'heretic' as follows: 
 
 Sing. Nom. Superbus. 
 
 Gen. Temerarii. 
 
 Dat. Mendaci. 
 
 Ace. Pertinacem. 
 
 Voc. Seditiose. 
 
 Ablat. Atheo vel Libertino. 
 
 Plur. Hi et hae impudentes per omnes casus. 
 
 From which it will be seen that Master Parsons was in "ex- 
 cellent fooling" at the time. Further in a letter to Charke printed 
 1 Wood's Athenae, \. 306. ' At Douay .' 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 43 
 
 at the beginning, he charges him with indecent behaviour at 
 Campian's funeral, which I sincerely hope was not true: "how 
 finallie you made hym (Campian) away by cruell death without 
 any shew or shadow of particular crime committed by him, against 
 prince or countrie; and. that your selfe (Mr. Charke) as a conqueror 
 of your adversarie, folowed him in person to the place of hys 
 Martyrdome with bigge lookes, sterne countenance, prowde wordes 
 and merciles behayvour." 
 
 This book was followed by "An answeare for the time, unto 
 that foule and wicked defence of the censure that was given upon 
 M. Charke's booke and Meredith Hanmer's...now published for 
 the stay of the Christian reader till Maister Charke's Booke come 
 foorth. London, Thomas Dawson and Tobie Smith, 1583." And 
 then comes "A treatise against the defence of the censure Sec...." 
 which, if I remember rightly, is Chark's; \ cannot be sure of the 
 date but it is printed at Cambridge. There is also a book 
 entitled "A remembrance of the conference had in the tower 
 of London betwixt D. Walker and W. Charke opponents and 
 E. Campion respondent 27 Septr. 1581...A true report of the 
 disputation had with E. Campian &c." 1583. Concerning all 
 which long entangled reply, censure, defence and disputation, we 
 can only say "Requiescant in pace\" 
 
 VI L Of William Chark's Library. 
 
 It will have .been observ.ed that in one of Chark's letters to the 
 Chancellor, he expressed himself as willing to retire somewhat from 
 the burning air of St Mary's church into the cool and sylvan soli- 
 tudes of his own library. He seems to have been at this time 
 possessed of a collection which he prized. And it is interesting 
 to know that it is possible to reconstruct quite a library of Greek 
 and Latin MSS. which were formerly in his hands. In addition to 
 
 ' The following references should be taken for the Chark persecution 
 
 Strype, Annals of Reformation, 11. 312, 
 „ Life of Parker, iv. c. 18, 
 „ Life of Whitgift, I. c. vil. App. No. XI., 
 
 Sequel to Freud's Trial, 11. 143, 
 
 Howell's State Trials, XXU. 701, 
 
 all quoted in Cooper, 
 Athenae Cant. ll. 
 312. 
 
44 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 the Leicester Codex and the Montfort Codex, we have the following, 
 all of which are in the British Museum : 
 
 Mus. Britt. Titus, D. i, containing xxxvii. articles of Wy- 
 cliffe in English. On the first page, ''sum gul. charci" 1575, i-e. 
 three years after the expulsion. No note is to be found indi- 
 cating from whence he obtained the book. But there are signs 
 that he studied it carefully, in the shape of marginal notes written 
 in his beautiful Greek hand drawing attention to some important 
 passage or making a criticism upon it. Indeed some parts of the 
 book are so much in Chark's line that, but for the date given above, 
 I should assume that he had been studying it not long before he 
 preached the fatal sermon. Thus we find that on fol. 28 b, Chark 
 has set on the margin the word opa. against the passage in which 
 Wycliffe attacks avaricious popes and cardinals, "thanne he is a 
 symonient and eretyk and a cursed anticrist and a sone of per- 
 dition, &c." 
 
 On i. 33, Chark has written on the. margin hroyr^ against the 
 following passage : " for the hethene men ben manie mo thousandis 
 than cristene and ben richere and betere men of werre." 
 
 The concluding words of the book are described on the margin 
 
 as TTpO(TeV)(T]- 
 
 The next is Cleop. A. 8, and contains 
 
 Epigramma in paparum nomina. 
 
 The Rhythm of Bernard of Morlaix etc. 
 
 At the beginning the note " Sum Guil. Charci!' Occasionally 
 passages are underlined, and sometimes a Greek abbreviation is 
 found on the margin to express the reader's opinion, e.g. /caXcSs. 
 
 The third is Claud. D. viii., and contains the Statutes of the 
 University of Oxford, bound up with the Postils of John Wiclif. 
 Only the latter part, I think, belonged to Chark. On its first. leaf 
 stands "Sum Guil. Charci ^l." which I take to be the price that 
 he paid for the book. We may evidently regard Chark as a true 
 disciple of Wyeliffe. 
 
 The fourth is Mus. Britt. 15, C. viii. A beautiful MS. of 
 Valerius Maximus, referred in the catalogue to the fifteenth century. 
 On the first leaf is "Sum Guil. Charci." And it is of great interest 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 45 
 
 tQ US from the fact that it has preserved the same mixed paper- 
 vellum arrangement as in the Leicester Codex, three leaves of 
 paper between two of vellum forming the quire (of ten leaves when 
 doubled over). Further there are catch-words from quire to quire. 
 This arrangement is so unusual that where we find two such MSS. 
 of special type in a transitional period, in the possession of the same 
 person, we are entitled to assume that they came from the same 
 manufactory. For this reason I refer the Valerius Maximus to 
 a common origin with the Leicester Codex and the Caius Psalter. 
 And the ground of this is that between one pair there is a common 
 early structure of book-building and a common late owner, and 
 between another pair a common hand-writing. Accordingly we 
 should add the Valerius Maximus to the Franciscan- Brinkley col- 
 lection, and then the three MSS. will go back beyond Brinkley 
 to a common origin and place. We have now completed our 
 Chark-collection as follows : 
 
 Cod. Leicest. 
 [Brinkley] 
 
 Chark 
 
 Hayne 
 
 . I 
 Leicester Borough 
 
 Wy cliff e^ s Articles 
 
 I 
 Chark 
 
 I 
 
 Mus. Britt. 
 
 (Titus, D. i) 
 
 Cod. Montfort. 
 
 I 
 Froy 
 
 Williams iyide infra) 
 
 I 
 Clement 
 
 I 
 Chark 
 
 I 
 Montfort 
 
 Ussher 
 
 .1 
 Dublin Univ. 
 
 {Bernard's Rhythm) 
 
 Chark 
 
 Mus. Britt. 
 (Cleop. A. 8) 
 
 Valeritis Max. 
 [Brinkley] 
 
 Chark 
 
 Mus. Britt. 
 (iS,c.vm.) 
 
 Wycliffis Postils 
 
 I 
 Chark 
 
 I 
 
 Mus. Britt. 
 
 (Claud. D. vni.) 
 
 Before we go into further enquiries with regard to the three 
 MSS. supposed to have had a common origin, we make a few 
 remarks with regard to the Montfort Codex. 
 
46 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 VIII. Of the Montfort Codex. 
 
 This MS. is not likely to help us a great deal in our enquiry 
 on account of its being so late in date. But it is interesting to 
 know that there are reasons for assigning to it also a Franciscan 
 origin. If we can establish this point, the known connexion of 
 the codex with the Leicester MS., through the common owner- 
 ship of Chark and the similarity of text in the Apocalypse be- 
 tween the two, becomes easily' intelligible. And the study of the- 
 origin of the Montfort Codex in other parts of the New Testament 
 will probably confirm this {i.e. if Dobbin is right in certain specu- 
 lations as to the copying of Montfort from Oxford codices, I should 
 expect to find that these codices were also Franciscan). But leaving 
 this on one side, as a point which I have not beeii able to investi- 
 gate, we have the good fortune to know the names probably of 
 nearly every person through whose hands the MS. has passed. 
 It is true that the leaf containing the names of the owners has 
 disappeared from the MS.: but we have Walton's note, among 
 others, that it originally belonged to one Froy, a Franciscan friar, 
 then to Thomas Clement, afterwards to William Chark, and lastly 
 to Thomas Montfort'. 
 
 ' With regard to Walton's note, however, most to a certainty that the other Friar who 
 
 we have a question raised by Dr Barrett in owned the book, or, which is much the same 
 
 his Collatio Cod. Montfort. p. 2. He says thing, disposed of it, was also a Franciscan, 
 
 that the note in the MS. is as follows ; So that Dr Barrett's remarks really supply 
 
 " Sum Thomae Clementis, olim fratris the needed demonstration, and at the same 
 
 Froyhe." time add one more to the list of owners. 
 
 Therefore if Walton is right that Froyhe Perhaps we ought to use the last word cau- 
 
 was a Franciscan, he must have obtained tiously. If we assumed the MS. to have 
 
 that information from sources unknown to passed from Williams to Froy, this would 
 
 us. If, however, Barrett throws some doubt meet most- exactly the spirit of the inscrip- 
 
 in this way on the statement that Froyhe tion, by which Froy appears as owner before 
 
 was a Franciscan, he establishes the con- Clement : but when we reflect that Williams 
 
 elusion in another way, by finding in the MS. was of the same college with Clement and at 
 
 the name of one Williams, of Corpus Christi the same time, it seems more reasonable to 
 
 College, Oxford, and notes in his handwriting; suppose that he obtained the book for Cle- 
 
 and he shews from Wood's Fasti that this ment from Froy, and this would make Froy 
 
 Williams took his degree as doctor of di- the earher possessor. In any case the Mont- 
 
 vinity about the year 152 1, that his name at fort Codex now enjoys the repute among 
 
 length is David WiUiams, and that he was a MSS. of having probably every one of its 
 
 ,Franciscan. Now if this be so, it follows al- owners known. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 47 
 
 Now the first thing to notice is that the ownership of the book 
 by Thomas Clement (which we shall shew reason presently for 
 correcting to John Clement) takes us back probably nearly to the 
 year 1520, when he was Greek Professor at Oxford, and we have 
 not therefore very much time to give the book into earlier hands, 
 since it is one of the most modern (as well as most famous) of all 
 MSS. of the New Testament. I conclude therefore that it is very 
 unlikely to have had many owners before Clement ; and the owners 
 are accordingly to be found among the Franciscan monks. If 
 owners, then probably one of them is also writer. 
 
 This being the case we have a Franciscan origin for the Mont- 
 fort Codex as well as the Leicester MS., which is the point that 
 we wanted to prove. But the matter does not stop there. For 
 we can, I think, actually identify the Froy of whom Mill speaks : 
 and I cannot but think that we have here an accidental repetition 
 of a letter on the inscription of ownership according to which 
 ' fratris Roye' has become 'fratris Froye.' Roy is well known: 
 in some respects he is one of the most remarkable figures of the 
 Reformation. His history is as chequered as his genius is versatile. 
 He was educated in the University of Cambridge, and became 
 shortly after a friar of the Greenwich Observants ; i. e. he attached 
 himself to one of the branches of the Franciscan order in England'. 
 But he forsook his convent, and in 1524 joined himself to Tyndal 
 at Hamburgh, whose amanuensis he became, and with whom he 
 continued for some time, until differences arose between them. 
 Hereupon Roy went to Strasburg, where he wrote the famous 
 satire upon Wolsey and the clergy, " Rede me and be not wroth," 
 as well as a book against the seven sacraments. He suffered mar- 
 tyrdom in 1 53 1 in Portugal, apparently on a charge of heresy. 
 Some idea of the man's talents and versatility may be gathered 
 from Tyndale's own language concerning him, which does not 
 disguise the abilities which Roy possessed, however much, it sets 
 his character in an unfavourable light. " One William Roye, a 
 man somewhat craftye when he cometh into • new acquayntance and 
 before he is thorou known, and namely when all is spent, came unto 
 
 1 See Cooper's Athenae, I. 44, andauthori- same date there would be in the same reli- 
 ties quoted. Is it d. priori likely that at the gious order both a Froy and a Roy.'' 
 
48 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 me and offered his help. As long as he had no money, somewhat 
 I could rule hym : but as soone as he had gotten hym money, he 
 became lyke hymselfe againe. He went and got hym new friends, 
 whiche thinge to do, he passeth all that ever I knewe. His tunge is 
 able not only to make fooles starke mad, but also to deceyve the 
 wisest that is, at the firste acquaintance." 
 
 This then (according to the best speculation we can make) was 
 the man who wrote the Codex Montfortianus, or at all events was 
 its owner at a time extremely close to that when it must have been 
 written. For Roy had ceased to be a Franciscan by 1524, and 
 the Montfort Codex makes its appearance in history between the 
 second and third editions of Erasmus ; i.e. between 15 19 and 1522 ; 
 nor can the Codex Britannicus, as Erasmus called it, be very many 
 years earlier, if earlier at all, than this period. I believe, there- 
 fore, that for the main part of the codex, including the forgery in 
 I John V. 7, Roy is responsible. 
 
 Let us ask ourselves whether there was anything in the atmo- 
 sphere of the Franciscan order that favoured or suggested the 
 production of such a MS. for polemical purposes. In the first 
 place remember that Ximenes, the father of the Complutensian 
 Polyglot, was regarded as the leading man in the Franciscan order, 
 and every attack upon Erasmus is therefore a Franciscan defence. 
 When the controversy over the Three Heavenly Witnesses be- 
 gan to wax warm, it was from the Franciscans of Antwerp that 
 a copy of the New Testament was produced containing on the 
 margin the disputed verse. This was sent apparently to Erasmus, 
 who remarks somewhat sarcastically upon the modern hand in 
 which the passage was written as follows : "In codice qui mihi 
 suppeditatus est e bibliotheca Minoritarum Antwerpiae in margine 
 scholium erat ascriptum de testimonio Patris Verbi et Spiritus sed 
 manu recentiore ut consentaneum sit hoc adjectum ab erudito quo- 
 piam qui noluerit hanc particulam praetermittir Remark, in the 
 next place, that the immediate predecessor of Brinkley, as pro- 
 vincial minister of the order in England, was Henry Standish, 
 of whom the main thing that is remembered in the Franciscan 
 monuments is his hostility to the version of the New Testament 
 made by Erasmus, by which I understand the text and anno- 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 49 
 
 tations and Erasmian critical work generally. So strong was 
 this antagonism that some authorities go so far as to say that 
 he made it a subject of daily discourse to hurl anathemas at 
 Erasmus. Now this is precisely the atmosphere to produce 
 such a forgery as the Montfort Codex contains, Standish was just 
 the man to inspire it, and Roy the very person to carry it out. 
 Nor is this argument affected, so far as the Franciscans are con- 
 cerned, if our conjecture concerning Roy be false. 
 
 I subjoin the authorities for the foregoing statements with regard 
 to Standish : 
 
 " Supplementum Historiae Provinciae Angliae." Duaci, 1671. 
 
 No. 48. Henricus Standish, Doct. Cantab, ep. Asaphensis, 1520. Egregie 
 scripsit contra Erasmi versionem Novi Testamenti. 
 
 Wadding. Scriptores Ord. Min. Syllabus, 167. 
 
 "Henricus Standicius, Anglus, S. T. D. et tandem episcopus Asaphensis, vir 
 pietate et doctrina clarus, Catholicae religionis strenuus propugnator, omniumque 
 haeresium juratus hostis, in suis concionibus haereticorum argumenta et errores 
 nervosa refutare solebat : et inter alios Erasmum Roterodamum temerariae doctrinae 
 nominatim aliquando arguebat. Pauca tamen eius scripta reperio, licet eum plura 
 scripsisse constat. Hos saltern operum titulos Willotus recenset. 
 
 Sermones ad populum, librum unum. Contra versionem novi testamenti factam 
 per Erasmum, lib. unum. 
 
 Londini mortuus et sepultus est in bona senectute, circa annum 1520." 
 
 The date of his death is evidently a misunderstanding, as it 
 is given 1534 in Wadding, Tom. xx. p. 340. The note is as 
 follows : 
 
 Henricus Standicius = Min. conv. sac. Theolog. mag. et oxonien. Universitatis 
 Doctor de quo plura inter lites quasdam selectiores a Roberto Keibrey an. 1602 
 Londini publicatas. Anno 1508 erat Angliae provinciae minister... 
 
 Scripsit etiam De matrimonio Catharinae Reginae cum Henrico VHP non 
 dissolvendo, teste Sanders de schism. Anglic, lib. i, apud Spondanum in con- 
 tinuat. annal. Eccles. ad an. 1529 num. 7. 
 
 Factus est autem Epis. Asaphensis in Anglia an. 1518 ex Reg. Pontif. seditque 
 annos 16 ex catalogo antistitum illius Ecclesiae : obiit igitur an. 1534 qup quidem 
 teterrima in Anglia haeresis et schisma incoepit. Hie idem cum in Erasmum calamum 
 strinxisset ab ipso in scoenam inductus legitur, aut Joannes ejus nepos, adag. 96. 
 
 Bale, De Script. Britann. p. 76, gives the same account of 
 
 his Erasmian antipathies with perhaps a little Protestant exag- 
 geration : 
 
 L. g. 7 
 
so ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 Henricus Standicius, minorita et asapherisis episcopus in quotidiana condone 
 plura contra Coletum et Erasmum blateravit et semel coram rege et regina in 
 genua procubuit. Et collaudatis primo eomm majoribus quod semper ecclesiam 
 aduersus haereticos ac schismaticos defendissent, hortatus imo per omnia sacra 
 obtestatus est eos, ut pergerent suorum progenitorum esse similes, alioque de- 
 ploratam fore Christi religionem. Jussus ut indicaret quae assent haereses exitiales 
 unde metueret : rem porrecturus in digitos, Primum inquit Erasmus tollit resurrec- 
 tionem, deinde nihili facit matrimonium, postremo de Eucharistia male sentit. Et 
 cum ad probationes ventum esset, pro Corinthios protulit Colossenses : " omnes 
 quidem resurgemus &c." risumque peperit multis. Edidit inutilis artifex 
 
 Sermones ad vulgum lib. I. 
 Contra versiones Erasmi lib. I. 
 
 et similes nugas. Claruit delirus senex anno Christo nato 1520. Londini tandem 
 sepultus. 
 
 The foregoing statement of Bale is interesting since it shews 
 that the attack was made upon Erasmus' doctrine through his text, 
 the disputed passage being i Cor. xv. 51 in which the Vulgate 
 and many old Latin copies read Trdvre? dvaa-Trjcroixeda (resurgemus) 
 for the irdvTe? [ou] Kot/jt-rjOrjcrofJieda of the Greek copies. This 
 presumably novel Greek reading, according to Standish, under- 
 mined the doctrine of the resurrection. This becomes more clear 
 when we turn to the Annotations of Erasmus on the passage in 
 which he refers directly to his critics : 
 
 Vides optime lector quam hie nihil sit quod in me debeat reprehendi. Nam 
 quod sequor eam lectionem quae sola nunc habetur in libris Graecorum, quum 
 Graeca vertam, non licuit secus facere. Et tamen ex hoc loco duo quidam, tanti 
 theologi, ut sibi persuaserint semel ruituram universam ecclesiam, nisi eam suis 
 humeris fulcirent, alter episcopi quoque dignitate praefulgens, uterque professor eius 
 religionis, quae baptismi professionem pene reddidit irreligiosam, atrocem calurnniam 
 mihi struxerunt'. Alter in corona frequenti noUlium et eruditorum hominum apud 
 summos principes, impegit, quod iollerem resurrectionem, propterea quod concederem 
 non asseverarem, aliquos in adventu domini non morituros. Alter in publica et 
 ordinaria professione impegit haeresim, quod inducerem lectionem contradictoriam 
 ei quam sequitur ecclesia. 
 
 The two writers w;hom Erasmus here repels (I quote from the 
 Annotations afifixed to the fifth edition) are evidently Lee and 
 Standish. After he has despatched their arguments he addresses 
 their persons in the following lively tone : 
 
 1 Ought we to correct this to " calamum mihi strinxerunt " in accordance with Wadding ? 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 51 
 
 Amant trpwroKaOeSpiai in scholis, gaudent iisdem in opiparis conviviis, amant 
 salutari Rabbini, venantur mitras et abbatias, et adulantes hominibus adulterant 
 sermonem dei, suisque traditiunculis obruunt scintillam charitatis evangelicae ; 
 
 the words which we have itahcised being peculiarly ad hominem. 
 
 The other references which Standish is said to have made in 
 his demonstration of Erasmian heresy may be illustrated in a 
 similar manner. His wrong belief with regard to the Eucharist 
 is probably a reference to the notes on i Cor. xi. : while the matri- 
 mony-dissolving doctrine may equally be referred to the same 
 epistle, c. vii. i, where Erasmus translates, " Bonum est homini 
 uxorem non attingere." Stunica makes the same complaint, de- 
 manding that the old translation mulierem be retained. At all 
 events it is perfectly clear from what precedes that Standish was 
 one of the leading English opponents of the Erasmian text. 
 
 It would be interesting, therefore, to find Standish's MS. against 
 Erasmus, which I do not think has been published, and to examine 
 whether there is any special animus displayed in the matter of 
 I John V. 7. This I have not yet succeeded in doing, though 
 I have, I believe, found the book which Bale describes as " Ser- 
 mones ad vulgum." For unless I am mistaken (unfortunately 
 the limited time that I have been able to give to the point 
 has prevented a very complete enquiry) this must be the book, 
 Mus. Britt. 8 E. iii.. Liber sermonum sive lectionum super Evan- 
 gelium. It has the name of John Standishe and the date 1532 
 on the first leaf. Also the name of Arundel Lumley. At the 
 end there is the note, "John Gyfiford de Stansted me possidet." 
 .This codex also is mixed paper and vellum, the arrangement being 
 very simple, a double paper leaf inside a double vellum leaf if I 
 remember rightly, and the paper being water-marked on page 12 
 with a pair of scales in a circle'. Elsewhere, I think, it will be 
 
 ' The following are instances of the occur- Pair of scales] on paper of the reign of 
 
 rence of these water-marks : in circle J Henry VI. 
 
 Pair of scales : Chamberlain's accounts for „ „ I have noted it also in 
 
 borough of Lynn in the a Greek Lectionary 
 
 year 1416. brought 50 years ago 
 
 „ „ In Bordeaux documents from Chanea in Crete, 
 
 for the year 1412. and now in, the posses- 
 
 „ „ Paston letters for the reign ^ sion of Prof Benton of 
 
 of Henry VI.: 1423 — Newark, Delaware. 
 
 1460. „ „ is also found amongst Jan- 
 
 7—2 
 
S2 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 found to have a crown or a rising sun or something of the sort. 
 The book then shews the genealogy : 
 Henry Standish 
 
 John Standish 
 
 John GyfFord of Stanstead in Essex 
 
 Lumley Library 
 
 I 
 British Museum. 
 
 This book might be worth examining, if one were on the 
 British Museum side of the Atlantic'. 
 
 ' With the exception of the verification, or, if necessary, re- 
 determination of the codices used by the writer or writers of the 
 Montfort Codex, we may now say that the history of the MS. is 
 pretty completely known. There is no water-mark, as I am in- 
 for-med, in the paper of the MS. It may be of interest to subjoin 
 the result of enquiries made with regard to Thomas Clement, 
 through whom the Montfort Codex passed on its way from Roy, 
 or Froy, to Chark ; we have no means of determining whether 
 
 merly belonged. The point is not however 
 of any moment to our enquiry. 
 
 * From the foregoing I think it will be 
 evident that Cooper must be wrong in affirm- 
 ing {Athenae Cantab. I. 55) that Standish was 
 not an author. The following references of 
 Cooper will be useful in further enquiries. 
 Richardson's Godwin, Burnet's Hist. Reform., 
 Wood's Athenae Oxon. (ed. Bliss I. 92), Grey- 
 friar^ Chron. 31. 34, Tanner's Bib. Brit., 
 Ellis's Letters (3) I. 187, Fuller's Worthies, 
 Fiddes's Wolsey 155, Knight's Erasmus, 
 Rymer XIV. 12, Le Neve's Fasti, Hall's Chron. 
 705, 756, Dodd's Ch. Hist. I. 186, MS. Rich- 
 ardson 8, Willis' St Asaph. To which add 
 for account of John Standish, MS. Corp. 
 Christ. Oxon. CCCVlll. i. 44. Cooper notes 
 the ancient Lancashire settlement of the 
 Standish family, the fact of his studying at 
 the two English Universities, his becoming 
 warden of the London convent before being 
 provincial of the order, where he was also 
 buried ; the date of his death is given by 
 Cooper as July 9, 1535. 
 
 sen's collection of water- 
 marks several times in 
 the latter part of the 
 fifteenth century, but 
 the dates of these are 
 not easy to identify, e.g. 
 Nos. 258, 263, 264, 278. 
 279. 
 is found in the Paston let- 
 ters during the reign of 
 Henry VL, and I note 
 it also in a document of 
 the reign of Edward IV. 
 year 1416. 
 these furnish a date a 
 little too early for Henry Standish to have 
 preached the serihons and written the MS. 
 On the other hand a mistake may have been 
 made by the writer from whom Bale took the 
 reference in consequence of the occurrence 
 of Standish's name in the book, for so many 
 of the titles in Bale and other writers of 
 the. same school go back to the Lumley 
 library, to which the book in question for- 
 
 The rising sun 
 
 with IHS in the 
 
 centre 
 
 On the whole, 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 53 
 
 Roy left the MS. among the Franciscans, or disposed of it, and 
 it is very httle use guessing at such points as whether Clement 
 ever owned any other of the MSS. which we have been discussing ; 
 but without any such speculation, we can give the leading facts 
 in the history of this learned man and reconstruct a portion of 
 his library. 
 
 IX. Of John Clement and his books. 
 
 There is a little complication which I have not been able wholly 
 to unravel, between Thomas Clement and John Clement, although 
 there is good ground, as will be shewn presently from an Oxford 
 MS., for referring the confusion to a misunderstood abbreviation. 
 We find the authorities sometimes giving the name one way and 
 sometimes another and sometimes {e.g. Pitseus) as if they were 
 two separate personages with experiences "so similar as to be absurd. 
 I give the name as John Clement on the faith of Antony Wood 
 and other authorities such as the roll-book of the Royal College 
 of Physicians which makes frequent reference to Clement as John. 
 John Clement, then, was born in Yorkshire as is supposed and studied 
 at the University of Oxford, where he seems to have successfully 
 combined a zeal for the new learning with a devotion to the old 
 religion at a time when Greek and Catholicism were not walking 
 arm in arm. 
 
 From Oxford he passed into the family of Sir Thomas More as 
 tutor to his children, amongst whom is to be reckoned an adopted 
 daughter of the name of Margaret who returned to Clement in 
 affection what she took from him in Greek, and of whose combined 
 wifeliness and wit he speaks in affecting terms after her death. 
 
 In 1 5 19 he returned to Oxford and settled in Corpus Christi 
 College, having been appointed by Wolsey his Rhetoric reader, a 
 position from which he speedily climbed to the Regius Professorship 
 of Greek. Some idea of his popularity may be gathered from the 
 language of Sir Thomas More concerning him ; " Clemens mens 
 Oxonii profitetur, auditoris tanto quanto non ante quispiam. Mirum 
 est quam placeat et deametur universis. Quibus bonae literae 
 propemodum sunt invisae tamen ilium charum habent, audiunt 
 
S4 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 et paulatim mitescunt." Translation seems to have been his forte, 
 if we may judge from the summary of his work given in Wood's 
 Athenae which includes the epistles of Gregory of Nazianzum, the 
 Homilies of Nicephorus Calixtus, the epistles of Pope Celestin the 
 first to Cyril bishop of Alexandria, together with a volume "epigram- 
 matum et aliorum carminum." He held the office, however, but a 
 short time, for we find that in 1521 or 1522 he had resigned his 
 position in order to devote himself to medicine, and Lupset had 
 been appointed in his room\ 
 
 The rest of his history can be gathered best from the Annals 
 of the Royal College of Physicians. On Feb. i, 1528, Clement 
 was elected a Fellow, on the i6th of April following an Elector, 
 and was one of the Physicians sent by Henry VHI. to Wolsey, 
 when he lay languishing at Esher in 1528. His later life was 
 affected by the changes in the ruling religion ; he was in exile 
 during a part of Edward VI.'s reign, apparently at Louvain. Thus 
 we find under date 1551 the following notice, " Postridie Divi 
 Thomae apost. electus est in numerum electorum Tho. Huys vice 
 doctissimi viri loannis dementis doctoris Lovanii peregrinantis 
 religionis gratia." But on the 19th of March 1554 we find him 
 re-admitted (Mary being now on the throne) among the Electors 
 of the College. " Quo tempore in comitiis primo post reditum 
 Louvainio apparuit Joannes Clemens, doctor et elector, cujus reditu 
 fortuna effectum est ut sint electores novem." 
 
 In 1555 we find a note which shews that old age was beginning 
 to ' claw him in its clutch '; " lo. Clementi doctori data facultas ut pro 
 arbitrio accedat ad Collegium tum propter senectutem turn propter 
 adversam valetudinem, nisi cum electio Praesidentis aut gravis 
 aliqua causa aut honor Collegii postulat." 
 
 On the accession of Elizabeth he again retired into foreign life, 
 and does not seem to have ever returned. 
 
 It is curious that two, if not three of the possessors of the 
 Montfort Codex should have had remarkable persecution to face on 
 account of their religion, Clement as a Catholic, Chark as a Puritan, 
 and Roy as a Protestant (though of what type we hardly know). 
 
 1 See a letter of Mare's "successit enim Clementi meo, nam is se totum addixit rej 
 medicae." 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 55 
 
 In 1569 or previously Clement gave his assistance towards the 
 Polyglot of Arias Montanus, by lending him a copy of the Pentateuch 
 which had belonged to Sir Thomas More, and which Montanus 
 notes in his preface in the following terms : " Est etiam nobis a 
 Clemente Anglo, Philosophiae et Medicinae doctore, qui in hisce 
 regionibus propter Christianam religionem exulat, exhibitum Pen- 
 tateuchi Graeci, ex Thomae Mori Bibliotheca, elegantissimum 
 exemplar." This copy will be described more at length presently. 
 On July I, 1572, he died in the Blocstrate, St John's parish, 
 Mechlin, and was buried the following day in the Cathedral Church 
 of St Rumbold's. 
 
 After the Codex Montfort, the following MSS. are known to 
 have been in his hands. 
 
 The Pentateuch already alluded to, more exactly to be described 
 as the Glasgow Octateuch : the MS. has been at Glasgow in the 
 University Library certainly since the time when it was there collated 
 for the Holmes and Parsons edition of the LXX. It appears from 
 a minute of the Senate of Glasgow University to have come to them 
 through Foulis the printer ; but a note in the book shews that 
 Clement gave it to his own College at Oxford. This note is near 
 the top of the first page and runs thus: "Joannes Clemens medicus 
 dedit Collegio Corpor. Chri. Oxon ut oret pro fidelibus defunctis, 
 A°.D. 1563 Octobr. 7." From this note it would seem as if Arias 
 Montanus must have had the use of the book at least six years 
 before the publication of his polyglot. There are other notes on 
 the page which have either been cut by the binder, or are other- 
 wise unintelligible^ The MS. is written on cotton-paper. 
 
 Besides this, Clement possessed a MS., now in the library of 
 Magdalen College, Oxford, and described in Coxe's Catalogue as 
 follows : 
 
 " Cod. XVI. Codex partim membranaceus et partim chartaceus, sec. xv. olim 
 peculium Thomae Clementis." 
 
 A collection of questiones philosophicae : amongst them Tract, distinctionum alias 
 formalitatum Petri Thomae Ord. Minorum. 
 
 1 I am indebted for my knowledge of these I have not yet had the pleasure of seeing the 
 points to my friend Alexander Blacklock of MS. 
 Glasgow University and Professor Dickson. 
 
56 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 Mr Wilson, the librarian of the College, has kindly given me 
 the order of the leaves in the codex, as follows : a quire of six leaves 
 (doubled into twelve) in the order VPPVPV : one of the most 
 eccentric arrangements I have seen. He also remarks that he is 
 ''not quite sure that Thomas should not be Ihoannes." This explains 
 the confusion that has arisen in Clement's name. 
 
 The Clement Library is now as follows : 
 
 Montfort Codex 
 Roy 
 
 1 
 
 Glasgow Odateuch 
 
 More 
 1 
 
 Quest. Philos. 
 
 Clement 
 
 1 
 
 Williams 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Cleirient 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 Magd. Coll. Oxon. 
 
 1 
 
 Clement 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 Corp. Christi, Oxon. 
 
 1 
 
 
 Chark 
 &c. 
 
 1 
 Glasgow Univ. 
 
 
 X. Further notes on vellum-paper codices. 
 
 It will be necessary now to ask the question v/hether there are 
 any directions in which we may extend our enquiries as to the 
 origin of the three MSS. which we have shewn reason for grouping 
 together as being of approximately the same time and place of pro- 
 duction. At present I see nothing that is likely to add to our 
 knowledge of the Caius Psalter. The other two MSS. invite 
 enquiry in two directions : first, as to whether their vellum-paper 
 arrangement is a local peculiarity, second whether their water- 
 marks can be identified. And although I am not by any means 
 sanguine (especially being now so far out of reach of large collections 
 of early books as I am) of arriving at the complete solution of the 
 two points, I will set down such information as' I have been able 
 to acquire. 
 
 The arrangement of the quires in vellum-paper MSS. has not 
 yet received the attention it deserves. I think it will be found 
 that in general there are two types, one in which the leaves are 
 equal in number from each material, another in which a number of 
 leaves of paper are laid between two leaves of vellum and doubled 
 to form a quire : so that a quire would be denoted by VP"V4- VP°V, 
 where n is the number of sheets of paper. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 57 
 
 Illustrations of this may be seen in the following MSS. : 
 
 Camb. Univ. Lib. Dd. x. 63, VP*V for half-quire. 
 
 „ „ Ff. i. 34, VP»V „ 
 Mus. Brit. Harl. 3161, VP^V „ 
 
 and sometimes VP^V. 
 
 These are all that I have at present been able to add to the 
 Leicester Codex and Valerius Maximus, which are both of the 
 general type, VP^V to the half-quire. Of these three MSS. again 
 two may be suspected to have a common origin, viz. the second and 
 third, for in addition to their singular arrangement they are both 
 water-marked with the 'three summits,' surmounted by a cross, 
 which may be seen in Sotheby, Principia Typographica (Paper- 
 marks); p. 58. This water-mark, according to Sotheby, represents 
 the arms of Bohemia, and is .frequently found in books printed in 
 Germany and Italy in the 15th century. I am not satisfied yet 
 about the Bohemian arms, but in the present case it is easy to 
 verify the other part of the statement, for the Harleian Codex was 
 written in Bologna, as appears from a note in it. The Codex (it 
 is a copy of Lactantius) is also dated in the year 1427, and it should 
 not be omitted that it has catch-words from quire to quire. Out 
 of the three codices therefore which we are able to compare with 
 the vellum-paper arrangement of the Valerius Maximus and the 
 Leicester Codex, two may be taken to be Italian codices of the 
 fifteenth century. This conclusion is an important one, in case it 
 should be shewn that, with any degree of probability, we are dealing 
 with singularities belonging to a particular time and place. 
 
 X I . On early paper-marks. 
 
 The subject of early paper-marks or, as they are commonly called, 
 water-marks, is still involved in much unnecessary obscurity ; and 
 not a few of the attempts which have been made to classify them 
 have made the matter worse confounded by missing the only two 
 points that we want to know in reference to the manufacture of 
 paper, viz. its place and its date. And the mere collection of figures 
 of water-marks, without any information on these points, is com- 
 paratively an idle sport. What is wanted to be known is whether 
 
 L. c. 8 
 
58 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 a particular mark belongs to one or more factories, i.e. whether 
 it is a private mark, or a government mark, the area over which 
 the manufactured paper is diffused, and the time during which any 
 particular paper-mark is in use. So that the enquiry can hardly be 
 separated from a ' History of the Invention and Manufacture of 
 Paper,' and it is evident from what has been previously said on the 
 subject in these pages, that no distinction occurs between MSS. on 
 paper and printed books. It is especially in reference to paper 
 MSS. that we require further information. For example, there are 
 no less than four different water-marks in the Leicester Codex, three 
 being found in the original manuscript and one on a slip of the paper 
 with which the book has been repaired. It is, perhaps, not too 
 much to say that if an adequate study had been made of these 
 water-marks we could announce at once the district in which the 
 book was written and, within moderate limits, the time of its pro- 
 duction, and also throw light upon the place and time of the hand 
 of the repairer. 
 
 It is surprising that no one has yet undertaken this enquiry, 
 especially as the paper-niarks in the Leicester Codex have not 
 altogether escaped the notice of collators. In one page of the 
 MS. the paper is so sensibly indented that it has been marked 
 over with a pencil by some student of the book. This prominent 
 mark is the one which occurs most frequently in the book, the 
 others being either wholly or partly so faint as to defy copying 
 with any degree of certainty. Two of these marks belong to 
 varieties of paper to which the scribe apparently betook himself 
 in despair on finding several sheets of the paper which he was 
 working with to be so faulty that they would not take writing 
 on both sides. What is true as to the practicability of tracing 
 the Leicester Codex by its paper-marks is also true of the Valerius 
 Maximus in the British Museum which I think I have shewn to be 
 a companion volume. For its paper is water-marked throughout 
 on every sheet, I think, with the device of a horse-shoe suspended 
 by a wire ; at least this describes it most nearly. But although I 
 have searched many MSS. and early-printed books and collections 
 of paper-marks I have not yet succeeded in identifying it, any more 
 than that of the Leicester MS. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 59 
 
 The matter stands thus : from the fact that we have not suc- 
 ceeded in identifying any one of the water-marks amongst the 
 printed books of the fifteenth century accessible to us, nor amongst 
 the water-marks copied from them by collectors, we incline to 
 the belief that the MSS. in question are earlier than the era of. 
 printing. And if this be so, and if in the period to which this 
 leads us, we can find no English documents from which a similar 
 water-mark can be extracted, that is, neither is it found in the 
 Lynn records which cover the period of time in question and are 
 sufficiently near to Cambridge to have been supplied from the 
 same paper factory, nor can we trace it in the Paston letters which 
 belong to a large part of the time in debate, and to an adjoining 
 county, supposing the MS., again to have been written by the 
 Cambridge Grey Friars, nor can we find any other similar water- 
 marks amongst English documents, we are almost forced to a 
 suspicion that the paper was of a foreign origin, and so remote 
 in its place of production that it came in as a book and not as 
 an article of merchandise. 
 
 The accompanying figures shew the principal water-marks, 
 then, of the Leicester MS., and we must enquire whether there is 
 anything about them that suggests a foreign manufacture. Marking 
 
 A 
 Fol. 170 
 
 A 
 
 Fol. 68 
 as on Fol. 170 but reversed 
 
 v^-sj 
 
 them respectively A, B, C we put the repairer's paper C on one side, 
 and there is besides a remaining one which is so hopelessly faint 
 that it is impossible to trace more than a certain number of doubtful 
 lines ; B is not much better ; we cannot even tell whether we have 
 
 :$— 2 
 
6o 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 got it the right way up. Our enquiry then is shut up to the 
 commonest of the water-marks marked A, which is found some- 
 times one way up and sometimes another, and with such slight 
 modifications as always occur in the size of the brass figures which 
 produce the paper-marks in the moulds, nearly throughout the book. 
 Now the first suggestion that seems to be likely is that the 
 figure is a trident, and that it may be a play upon the name of 
 the City of Trent (Tridentum). We know from Braunius, De 
 Civitatibus orbis terrarum, that it was a disputed point as to whether 
 the city derived its name from the trident of Neptune, the marks 
 of which were exhibited at a certain spot in the city, or from the 
 three mountain summits visible therefrom. Now if we could infer 
 that this latter conception is the one which we frequently find in 
 fifteenth century paper (which Sotheby, on the other hand, affirms 
 to be the Bohemian arms) we could easily take the step of identi- 
 fying the Leicester water-mark with the other conception, that of 
 the trident. Unhappily we have no evidence as far as I know 
 as to the establishment of a paper-factory in the city of Trent ; 
 if we knew it to have existed there, or if we were sure that the 
 figure was a trident, or if the well-known mark of the three summits 
 could be identified with the city of Trent, all would be compara- 
 tively easy. But three strings to one's bow are little better than 
 one when they are all weak'. 
 
 B C 
 
 Fol. 64 
 
 Fol. 42 
 on mended leaf 
 
 ^ Three summits is the coat of the family province of Arezzo). Three summits sur- 
 of Del Monte di Monte Sansavino (in the mounted by a tree is the badge of the Tuscan 
 
OF -THE NEW TESTAMENT. 6i 
 
 Another suggestion presents itself. The earliest known Italian 
 paper was manufactured in the district of Ancona ; here we are 
 on firm ground ; the only question that has ever arisen being 
 whether the paper manufactured was bombycine paper or the more 
 modern linen paper. Furt>her we know from the earliest descriptions 
 of this manufactory^ that every sheet sent out had an attached 
 mark, a point which settles the question, in my judgment, against 
 silk paper ; for I have never yet heard of nor seen a special mark 
 attached to the earlier oriental paper. Last of all we gather from 
 Orlandi, Notizia delle citta d' Italia, that the device of the city of 
 Ancona is a rastrello with three teeth'^, and it is quite possible that 
 this heraldic figure is what the paper manufacturer has attempted 
 to represent. 
 
 Here then we have a perfectly intelligible explanation of the 
 principal paper-mark of the Leicester Codex. The fourth paper- 
 mark is, I suspect, not Italian. It is, however, too faint for us to 
 determine accurately the device. For the convenience of those 
 who are occupied in these and similar researches I have some 
 thoughts of publishing presently a collection of the principal dated 
 water-marks of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 
 
 And now to sum up this part of our enquiry : there is reason 
 to believe that before the Leicester Codex came into the possession 
 of the Cambridge Franciscans, it was to be found upon Italian soil ; 
 for there is a suspicion derived from the handwriting, from the 
 . vellmn-paper arrangement in the quires, and from the paper-mark, 
 which seems to indicate that it is an Italian production not half 
 a century anterior to the invention of printing ; but it must be 
 remembered that this conclusion is not of so great a probable weight 
 in the matter of the reasonings upon which it is based as the argu- 
 ments by which we referred the book to Franciscan hands. If 
 however our conclusion be valid we shall probably some day discover 
 the ancestor of the MS. in some one of the Italian libraries. 
 
 city Mont-Alci : cf. lAtXs., Famiglie Italiane. ^ See Bartolus, De Insigniis et Armis, 
 
 The coat of the city of Catacium also shews quoted in Tiraboschi, Storia della Letter. Ital. 
 
 three summits under a crown, cf. Ughelli, v. 96. Bartolus died in 1359, so that this gives 
 
 Ital. Sac. IX. 355 : and the Marquises of Del an early date for water-marked paper. 
 
 Monte S. Maria nell' Umbria shew on their ^ I quote here from memory only, having 
 
 coat six, summits in pyramid (Litta, Vol. iv). failed to find a copy of this book. 
 
62 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER- CODEX 
 
 XII. On the non-Biblical portions of the Leicester Codex. 
 
 There are several patristic tracts or portions of tracts in the 
 Leicester Codex, which deserve to be printed, if for no other 
 reason, than because they assist us to determine the genealogical 
 relations of groups of MSS. They are as follows: 
 
 F. 159 b. An explanation of the Creed and the Seven Councils. 
 
 IIi(7Tei;<o ets eva oeov koI to, iirj's' ovtui (j>pov(ov Koi 8iOj«.oXoyo)i' dirapaTpiiTTiOi rrjv iv 
 Ti/ KaOoXiKy KoX oTTocTToX.i.Ky iKKkr](rLa. ec^tSpu/ieViji/ te kol K-r)pv<7crofi.ivriv ttio-tlv rdg ayi'as 
 Ktti oiKOvp.eviKa'; iirra crvvoSov; a7roSe;^o//iai' Trjv piv Trpiorrjv, ara (1. oiye) Sif, "Apetov koi 
 TODS opo<l>povovvTas avTi2v (1. avToI), a/ia rrji /SSeXvKTrj'; avTOiV KTiapaToXarpuas, Siappij^a- 
 <rav T£ KoX Ka0eKov(rav Tqv 8e Sevrepav oSs tov <j>pevo^)<.a/3rj MaKcSoi'tov rrj's eKKXijaiao'TiK'^s 
 \opoaTacrCas i^ocrrpaKi^cracrdv t£ koL eKTe/AoBtrav, 'Apetoi irapairXriaMv Trjv paviav iKpLep/q- 
 vora- €v KTiup,a,Ti yap cfuroi to Ttavayiov koi iravTovpyov irveB/ia TiOrj^ (1. Tt^eis) ■trve.vp.a 
 KTiparoXaTpelv (1. Knap.aToXaTpeLv) ovk ija^vviTO- aXX' dye Sij- Koi t^v rpCrriv ot!(rav 
 Ka$aipirqv ToB Sucre^Sovs (1. SvcraefSov's) Nijo'Topioii Kal t^s avTw Kaivoiroirjdeia-rj^ OeocTv- 
 yovs 8etcrt8aijU.ovias* outos yap tov dSiaiperui? Koi Ka6' virdcrTaaLV evoiOivra tu Oe(S Koyio 
 (1. Aoyov) 6X.lk6v (1. vXlkov) avOpoirov ToXprjpoi^ koi d<f>p6v(i>'; t^s OeiK-^s tov Xoyov Sia- 
 (nruiv viro(7TCW€ui^, iSiov7r6(TTaTov avTOV ETcpaToXoyet te Koi i<j>aVTd^eTO- 810 xal ij/iXov 
 dvffpoiTTOv TOV (TapKi iirKJiavivTa viov /cat Xoyoi/ toS 6eov dvetpoS^as aKoXov^ws d Tpur- 
 a^Xios KaXciv TTJv iravayiav OeOTOKOv deoTOKov Kvpiuti dirrjpvrjo'a.TO, TrjV 8e TerdpTrjv, cos 
 tov Svo-Tv^rj 'Evrvx^i' "ai AiocTKOpov tov aXao-Topa KaTapprj^airdv [te] Kal dvaOepMTtcrao-av 
 /xETtt T^s <^avTa(7iu)8oDs avTcSj/ cjjpevopXajiias Koi Ttdanj^ avTwv Trji uyppopiav Tr/v yap 
 TOV Kvpiov (rapKa p,rj Eivai r/piv opoovtriov kX-qpuihovv dXX' Ik 8ijo /*£V tjrvcrtiav ttjv tvuxriv 
 yevicrOaf cts p.iav 8e p,eTd TrjV evcotrtv o'uvai'aXuj^i^i'at (ftvcriv, prjSeTepa? aTroaw^ovcrav Ta 
 ISuipaTa, p.rjTe Trjq de'iKr]^ f'-V'''^ I^W ''V^ dv^pcoTrivijs" Kal ttjv ■n-ip.irmjv Se (os iKT€p,ova-dv 
 Te Kat aTTOTicfipuitraa'av TeXeov Ta eir oXeOpio Tuiv yeyevrjKOTiDV avapnritpp,eva puapd 86y- 
 /*aTd Te Kal p,vr]fii,aTa tov Sva-a-ePov'; T^rjo^TOpiov tov ttJs Bao-tXi8os ddiui'S upap)(i]a-avTOS' 
 Kal ©eoSoopoi) tov Moi/fOtJEO-Tias aOewTipov eTrtcr/coTrtdo-aVTOs, avTovl T« Kal Trdi/Tas tovs ttjv 
 avTTJv avTOK paTaKftpoirvvriv (1. pxvraio^poa^vvqv) eKvocTJ/travTas' oi prfv dXX' dye Srj- koi 
 <os 8tao'5rdcrao"ai' Te Kal eKdepifracrav Opiyeur]v, AiSvpov, Eudyptoi', 'EXXi7vo'<^povi Xoyurpa 
 Kal dcruvcTco yv(op,r} eh ea~j(aT0V ^vdov aSeoTijTos eKTrcTrrcoKOTas" /SaOfiovi yap Kal viroKTTa- 
 a-eis BeoTrjTOs dvairXdo-avTCS Kal i^up^uSi' xpoiiTrdp^ets Kal t^s irpds to deiov avTtav yeve- 
 o-ecos (cod. yevCTetos) diropias Te Kal d^roiTTWcreis ei/ eauTOts viroo-T);o-aVTes, eis Sidipopd Te 
 Kal ■7roXvci8i7 cr<op/x.Ta p.eTayy itpvra's TauTas Kal p.eTa^SaXXoi'Tas Kal tc'Xos KoXdcreais Kal 
 8at/*oVo)v dirOKaTatrTacretS' to 8»y Xey6p,evov diro KoiXias ' epevyojievoi d6vpo<TTdp,<Di (1. dflv- 
 pocTTopwi) epLvOoXoy-qcrav Te Kal KaTaairauav (1. KaTeo'Trao'av) Toris d/t(^l 'Oviipiov koX 
 ^epyiov Kal MaKapiov Toiis TeparoXdyous Kal Trapatjipovas ap,a auTOts Kal tovs rqv avTiov 
 8iHT(7€y8eiav OKpaTcSs evaTTopa^apevovs pera Trj's iK<f)vXov Kal dXXoKOTOU avTMi/ ■rrXaa'paTO- 
 Xoytas' ev yap OeXyjpa Kal piav Ivepyeiav t^ Ik Svo dirapaTp eirroiv fjivaewv irecjjVKOTi 
 ■vpuTTto Tw ^ew ijp<ov KaK(3s ot 8£iXatot eireypdcjiOVTO. Iti 8€ Kal T171' ei* NiKata to Seu- 
 Ttpoi' iepdv Kal peydXrjv crvvohov toiis etKoi'o/Aa^ovs Kal Std tovto ■)(piaTopa-)^ov's Kal dyto- 
 KaTmopovi diro<TKvl3aXi<ra<Tdv T« Kal KaTa^dXXcwa-av' trvv avToii Se Kal ttjv PBeXvKT^v 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 63 
 
 KoX Mavtp(a't'Ki)v auToIi/ aijO£(Ttv to yap tov Kvpiov 7)fi.wv 'Irjo-oC ^picrTov ofioovcnov rjfxiv 
 ayiov <7(3/ia ypacfteiv eiKovi/coJs i/JLvadrTovTO, to aypaTrrov xai aTreplypaTrrov avTOv Kora- 
 fiaK^evovTCS' Koi Sia tovto jj/rj clvai -^filv Ofioovatov /j.aviKiS's (TVfji.TrepaivovTt'S' ravras ovv 
 Tcis ayias kol olKOvp.eviKa.'S eTrm cruvoSovs dTroSe)(oiJiai,, dvaOefLa/ritfuv ous d,vi6e.p,a,Ti<Tav, 
 (caTacrira^d/xevos Se Kai /neyaXwcov ots cTTcu^i^jurjcrav ariTjy /hod 57 r^s iritrTco)? /iai rtov 
 £is TavTqv av7]K0vru>v Kai ■Tnpi avrrjv v0icrTa|U.£V(ov 0|U.oXoyia. xai ei/ TavTrj -q eXttis, ouk 
 e/ioi 8e fiovov dXXa kol iraaiv otrois ewejSelv fxefjiekeTriTaL- koI t^'S Ka9apS,<; kol aKipSrj- 
 \ov Soir/s Tiov xP''<'"''"iiv(3v Oelo's epus Trpo(T7ri(j)VKiv iy^ea-dai. 
 
 This is followed by the lives of the Apostles. 
 
 Herpo's Kai AvSpeas a.SeXcj>oi, ex iratpos 'loxxvvov, furjTpo's 8e 'Iwavd, airo Biy^crai'Sa 
 njs 7roXe(u5, aXiei? nyv rep^vijv. /cat o /a€v IleTpos yevo/yifi/os wpuTos iiria-KOTro^ ev 'Av- 
 Tio^Eia, ETTciTa Kai £1/ Vw/jiri, reXeiovTaL etti NEpwi/os (TTavpto^Eis etti KitjiaXrji. 'AvSpras 
 Ktti 'lujarvi/s f/aOrjTal tov wpoSpofiOv. 'AvSpeas d a'SeX^os lUrpov Krjpvias kv ttj 'EXXaSi 
 Ev IlaTpais (TTavpovrai wd tou AiyEarou. 
 
 laKOi^os Kai Iwavi/i^s ciSeA^oi Ik Trarpds ZEySfSai'ov, pLr/Tpos 'lepoKXeCa's utto Br;6craiSa, 
 
 aXlElS" Kttl O /AEV laKCOySoS £V lEpOCToXv/AOtS ^TTO 'HpOjSoTOU (1. 'HpwSov) TEXElOljTai ^L(f)er 
 
 loiavvTjs o evayyeXL<7Tr)S o aScXcftos avTOv iv 'E</>£<t(j) /AETacTTEXXETai i^Kovra oktco etj; 
 TJjs avaXrjipews tov KVpCov. 
 
 OiXiTTTTos EK irarpos ^iXicravou, /xrjTpoi Se 2o<^ias, aird Bij^craiSa, iji/io^os to £7riT?f- 
 SE«/J,a, £v IspaTrdXEi fxapTvpil. 
 
 ©lOjx.d'i [add d] Ktti 'loCSas, 8i8vp,os (Sr /xETct dSeXcfirj^ Xe.yop.ivr}'; (cod. Xtyo)/i£Vr;s) 
 Aio-ias EK Trarpds Aio^avovs, p-rjTpos Se 'PoJas, aird 'AvrioxEias, £V 'IvSi'a t^ KaXap,tTi8i 
 
 TEXElOUTai ITEpiSapElS. 
 
 nap0oXop,aios (1. BapBoXojj.aio';) eK iraTpo? ^wadevov (cod. Swcroo-^EVou), /j.rjTpo's Ovpavias, 
 TToXLapLTt]^ (sic) EiTOi (1. ^Toi) Xd^ava (l)VT€vo)v iv 'Ap/SaviS tto'Xei tijs 'App,Evtas a-TavpovTai. 
 
 OaSSaios d Kai Aeveojs d avrds Kai 'loCSas 'laKiojSov XsyErai ek TraTpds ^ £Kpo<j>avov<;, 
 /xrjrpo's Si ^eXijvrj^, 'iTaXiKos ev "PefievTrj (1. "Pa^ivvy) pXtit.jx.Lia dvapT-qOeU Kai to^ev^eis 
 
 TEXflOVTai. 
 
 laKwySos o tov AX<j>aLov Ik iraTpo^ *Av8povos, /jirjTpos Se Evru^^ias aTrd 'lEpas ttoXeios 
 Xao^ds (1. Xaofoos) ttJi/ Texyrjv iv 'IvSia Trj^ /Sap^apiKrjs TeXewvTaL (TveXr/XaxrTOS. 
 
 MaT^atos, d Kai Aeui, teXiovi/s rd £5rir)78EU;u,a, d avrds Kai EuayyEXio-Tr^'s, £k Trarpds 
 'PovKov, fx.rjTpo'; Se XEpo^ias, aTrd r^s TaXiXaias ev 'Hpj; t^s Ilap^Eias TEXEtourai Xt^ois. 
 
 SijU'OJV o Kavavinjs 6s Kai Z?;X(i)ny s • XEyErai, apicrroKXifrou rov Kupi'ou eis tovs ya/uoDs, 
 EK Trarpds KaXXicovos, yuryrpos dfi AKyuias aTrd SaXT/joi, o-ravpo) Trpotrr/XwOeh. 
 
 'louSas lo-KapKOTTjs dTr£X6'a)i' dTrrj^ctTO- Kai avr' aurod ela-fjXOe Mar^ias. 
 
 IlauXos Kai MapKOS Kai Aodkcis ek rdJi' o'- Kai d /uev IlavXos aTrd Tapcroi) r^s KiXi- 
 Ktas, ai/arpa^Eis ev lEpoo-oXv/iois wd Pa/xaXiiyX (cod. ra/taXXT^X), aVd 'lEpovo-aXi)|U, /HEYpi 
 Tou 'IXXupiKov Krjpv^a<;, iv 'Vutfu-y TEXsioCrai ijtto NEpwfos ^i<^Ei- d Se M.dpKO's iv 'AXe^av- 
 
 SpEio. TEXElOlJrai. 
 
 The foregoing extracts are followed on f. 1 6 1 by the limits of the 
 Patriarchates, as follows. As M. I'Abbd Martin attaches a good 
 deal of weight to the occurrence of this document in Cod. 346 and 
 
64 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX 
 
 uses it to emphasise the Calabrian origin of the Ferrar-group, I have 
 given not only the Leicester text, but also the principal readings in 
 the MS. Cod. Ev. 556 = Burdett-Coutts iii. 5, and some references 
 to the printed text of Leo the Philosopher, from whom it is derived 
 (Migne, Pair. Gr. cvii. col. 329 — 386). I have only that part of 
 346 and Leo printed by Martin. 
 
 rEpuTos^ ^povos Ktti irptstTt] TrarpLap^La 'lepoa-okv/xtov, 'laKw^ov tov d8e\tj>o6eov kol 
 aTTOcrroXov, avTo:rTov kol VTr-qpirov tov Xoyov yevop-ivov" • Koi p,vaTOv T(3v d-iropprJTUiv 
 Kai ddfa.T<ov avTov pva-TTjpiuiv .6(.ap.a.Ttov, Trepi€X(ov iracrai' n^v IlaXato-Tti'wi' ' ywpav aypi 
 'Apa^tas. 
 
 AeuTcpos 6povo'S Tou aTroa-roXov IltTpov dm 'Pco/Aiys p-^)(pi ToJv* opiuiv Ma^aji/ koX 
 TaXXtov^, %iravia% Kai $payytas°, koX tov 'WXvpLKOv, p-^XP'- TaSijpwv^ Kal 'UpaiiXiovi" 
 \_K(uY orTrjXmv'" kol QKeavov, reXos €;;(Ovtos" ets Svo-p.d's 17X101; iv w eltrl veKpd vSara 
 KOL a/ct'vijTa'^ vXujSij' iv <j) v^^cros ell ra aKprj T(3v (oKeavmv'^ ireXdyoiv ■iroXvavSpo^, XP'""- 
 Tiavwv airetpov'* TrXiJ^os* a)(pi 'Va^evvrjs Koi AayoySapSas'* Kat Occro-aXoi'iKi;?, SKXa/Suv'" 
 Koi 'Apdpuiv Koi %Kv6<av ?<os ^avov^Lov irOTapov ras e/CKXiycriao-Tt/cas opoBea-las' (OdavTwi 
 SapSaviW' KOL Mijydpi/cay °, TS.apOayiwrjv^^ Kal p.ipo^ tiuv 'Eo-Treptuv, koa. p,epos T^s^° 
 SiKeXias Kal KaXaySpias iv ots Stairveoucni/^' aveyiioi dpatTKiai^^ dpKTiSo's Trapijtas^' vajpcos^* 
 Kat d^* t,'^(f)Vpo<;' SvriKos Xvi/' /cal Xv/SovoToi'^. 
 
 TpiTOS Opovoi Kaivo-TavTivoTToXcojs to5 -n-poiTOKXi^Tou^' 'AvSpeoi; Kat tou ^eoXoyou 
 'Icoavvov To{!^' cvayyeXtcrToi), irepw^""" iratrav t;^s 'VtopaiKrj'; i^ova-tas Ti/jv /Sao-tXeiav^", 
 Eiptoiriyv t£ Kai 'Axriav p^^xpi Trj's Svo"€0)s Kai ras KvKXaSas^" xcui' vyjcraiv avpi IIoi'tou Kat 
 Xepa-<3i/os Kat 'A/3acrytas XaXSt'as Kat 3fa^aptas KairaSoKtas^' Kai Tra(rijs 'Ap/Acvtas'^ (sic), 
 Ta ToC ySopa*' KX-qpaTa (1. KXtjttara) ■jrepiXap.jSdvoiv. 
 
 Terapros ^pdvos 'AXc^avSpctas, MapKou toij airocTToXou Kat** euayyeXicTTOv utov IleTpov 
 To{! airoo'ToXov, yevo/ieVoi) voTapiov Trepii^wv £(i)S T^s ecTcoTCpas 'IvSt'as Kat At^toirtas, 
 
 ' In B. C. there is prefixed yj/eoo-is leat eVi- 
 yvatiTis Tiav iTaTpiapxii>>v. 
 ^ Leic. yevopevos. 
 ^ B. C. 7raXai(7Tivr)V. 
 * B. C. om. r<oi/. 
 ^ B. C. yaXXKBi/. 
 •* B. C. et Cod. 346 I/pay Kias. 
 '' Cod. 346 yaSeipwv. 
 ' Cod. 346 ijpaKXcKoj'. B. C. ^paKKeas- 
 " Leic. + Kat. 
 1° Leic. et B. C. a-rvXav. 
 *1 Cod. 346 c;;(0!/ TO. 
 ^^ Cod. 346 dK7)vr)Ta. 
 13 Cod. 346 'fiKfarau. 
 1* B. C. dneLpos. 
 ^ Leic. et B. C. Xayo^apSav. 
 1* Leo. aSXa^av, Leic. KXat/3oiy. 
 I'' B. C. et 346 'S.apbavias. 
 
 1* B. C. MayapiKav, 346 Mayaptxas. 
 
 1' B. C. KapBayevVTjs, 346 KaprayEvi/Tjs. 
 
 2° Leic. om. Kai...T77i. 
 
 21 B. C. + o.'. 
 
 22 B. C. et 346 BpitTKias. 
 
 ^ Cod. 346 jrapaiaj, B. C. irapKias. 
 
 ^ 346 ;f(Bpfti)j. 
 
 2^ B. C. om. (cat o. 
 
 2" B. C. et 346 XifiovoTos. 
 
 2^ B. C. TrpaiTOKXlTOV. 
 
 28 B. C. Kai. 
 
 ^ B. C. ^a&. Tr,v e$. 
 
 '» B. C. KuXaSar. 
 
 ^ B. C. xairn-aS. 
 
 '2 B. C. appevias. 
 
 33 B. C. /3oppa, 
 
 3* B. C. om. ajr. Kat. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 65 
 
 Opovov aTTOOToXovi ®(i)|U,a, a^pt Map/xapi/c^s Koi 'A(j>piK7J^ Kal TpimX.ew;' Koi Tratrai/ t-^v 
 MyvTTTiav"^ \tapav a)(pL tujv opmv IlaXatcrTti/ijs tci tov votov Khqp,aTa (1. Kki/xara cum 
 B. C.) irepie^uyv : — 
 
 Hi/j.-iTTOi Opovoi 'AvTiox^iai Tov Kopv<j)aiov Ilerpov, Trcpie^uiv a;^i t<3v a<^ 7;A.iod ava- 
 ToXo3v Tropiav i^ovTUiv p,7jviav Ittto,, ecus ti^s 'I/Jepias Kal 'App,tvias Koi 'A<jy8i;yias'° Kai 
 /ic^pi T^s icTfuripai iprjfiov Uepcruiv, WLijSuiv, XaXSai'iov £cos njs 'Apa^uiv r/ye/jiovia';, TiapOwv 
 Kal 'EXa/i,»/Ta)v'' Kal MecroTroTa/iias Kal a^' iJXtov*' tov avaToX6Ko{i a.vift,ov tvOa 6 ^Xios 
 avoreXXci. 
 
 ■ Cod. B. C. pergit. e^a 8e p,rjjpoiro)\.tTa<; 1/3'. At ra^eis toJv KXi[ji,a.Tu>v T^s d.^piKrj'i koX 
 ircus KaXowrat. Trp^TOV KXijxa -q XijSvr] v/ Kakovp-ivr] X.ovj3t€ Koi p.aipaKi, ktJ. 
 
 It has been pointed out by Scrivener and Burgoh and Martin 
 that the description of the five patriarchates is also to be found in 
 Cod. 211 of the Gospels at Venice. I have not examined the 
 menology in the Burdett-Coutts MS. in order to find Sicilian or 
 Calabrian traces. The whole of these MSS. were imported, I 
 believe, from Janina in Epirus ; but this does not of itself militate 
 against the Abbe's theory, since books may move east as well as 
 west. But I shall be curious to notice whether he is not soon 
 involved in the whole of the New Testament problems even with 
 the isolated Calabrian codices. 
 
 The subscriptions to the Gospels in B. C. agree closely with the 
 Ferrar-group : e.£: 
 
 Ik tou KaTa jtiar^atov evayy^XioV iypa.(j>r) e^paiorl iv TraXaicmivL (sic), fierai r\ irr] T^i 
 avaX7]ij/e<D^ tov kv. e^ei 8e pif/xara ^j8<^k^'' ei^ct 8e (ttl^ovs fi^^'- 
 
 euayyiXiov Kara jxapKoV lypa^Tj puyfjiaLcrTl iv fx^p-XI p-crd tyS' err] tjjs avaXiyi^ecos tov 
 KvptoV i)^ei 8e pjf/iaTa ;;^iXia e^OKOcria efiSoixijKovra ttcvte. ctti ^a^ir'. 
 
 (vayyiXiov Kara XovKav iypd<f>ri eXXijvtorl £is dXi^avSpiav Trfv fJi.eydXr]v p,eTtt. T17S 
 
 dvaXijij/etii'; tov kv' e^et Se p-qp.a.Ta ^yojy'* trrtp^ovs jSi/'i''. 
 
 iva.yyiX.iov Ik tov Kara lid iypa<J3rj cXXiji/itrrl th e<j>€crov /ieToi Iti/ X' t^s avaXij'i^cus tov 
 kV e)(ei 8e puj/xaTa a^Xij'' €)(€i St aTL)(0V'S ^k^'' im, So/JL€Tiavov tov ySacriXews. 
 
 It will be seen that these agree almost identically with the 
 Ferrar- Abbott subscriptions : for the text we must wait until 
 Dr Scrivener publishes his collation. We shall need at the same 
 
 ^ B. C. alyvTrriiov* 
 '° B. C. dfiacryias (om. Kai) 
 ' B. C. eXafiLTtov* 
 
 L. C. 
 
 ^ sic. B. C d(j}iXia. 1. 'ATTijXtoJroi; and cf. 
 Arist. Meteor, n. 6. 
 
66 ORIGIN OF THE LEICESTER CODEX. 
 
 time further particulars of Cod. 348 at Milan which M. Martin 
 attaches to the Calabrian family, and of Cod. 2 1 1 at Venice which 
 shews, somewhat similar peculiarities. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE : 
 
 PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
^,dec>(p|K C«>t.-TPQAA.cuy •u^'AcoK^if ouiort^-^^"'* ^^^Kf^ 
 AjJrN -neo^«^ir**4^^'i' wVc^pcH^ -i»AA*£#< '{ii«s-«c0tt. x««*2«/ 
 
 ■ - 'I' T, '* r • » ' ^ \, r «> — tt _si''- 
 
 
^^ r , > ^f 
 
 If-—. » — m- -/// 
 

 v^??i: 
 
 5» <« -t 
 
 
 
 
 * ^ 
 
 '^ ip ^ ^^