SEARCH RECORDS

INTRODUCTION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS
UNTRACED MANUSCRIPTS
SCRIBE B=ADAM PINKHURST
SCRIBE D=JOHN MARCHAUNT
THE HAMMOND SCRIBE
THE “HOOKED-g” SCRIBES
THE PETWORTH SCRIBE
THE BERYN SCRIBE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
HOME
initial
A Digital Catalogue of the
Pre-1500 Manuscripts and Incunables of the
Canterbury Tales
Second Edition
MANUSCRIPT:  En3
Location:  LondonBritish Library Egerton MS 2864
☙       ☙       ☙
MANUSCRIPT CONTENTS:
1. Canterbury Tales (DIMEV 6414): fols. 1r-292r
2. Siege of Thebes (Lydgate; ed. Erdmann 1911 [Part 1] and Erdmann and Ekwall 1930 [Part 2]; DIMEV 6276): fols. 292v-341rnote
3. “The cronekelys of Sent[ys] & kyng[ys] of yngelond” (damaged severely): fol. 341vnote
Tale-order: 
a (view in DIMEV): I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Progress of Copying: 
GenPro ends on fol. 13v, half way down the page, followed by “Ex[plici]t prologus.” The remainder of the page is blank. The incipit, foliation, and title in the corner are all added in a different shade of ink from the text of KnT in this part of the MS. At the foot of fol. 49v is a note in a sixteenth-century hand to “Count to the next leafe,” indicating a folio of out-of-sequence text; fol. “lj” precedes fol. “l” in the scribal foliation. MLPro begins directly following CkT on fol. 64v, but is preceded by the following explicit/incipit: “Chaunces maad no moor of the cookis tale | Heer bigynneth the p[ro]log of þe s[er]geaunt[is] tale of lawe.” Some of the running heads in this section read “The sergeant is tale.” On fol. 128v, in the margin next to the final stanza of ClT, the scribe first wrote “vita hospitis,” but crossed that out and wrote “verba hospitis.” Below the stanza, at the bottom of the page is “Ex[plici]t vita Grisildis | hic desinit fabula Clerici Oxon.” On fol. 192r, next to the centered title “The hoost to Chauncer” is “no more of this” in a box in the margin (i.e., the first words of the Host’s interruption of Thop: DIMEV 3700). On fol. 254r, the scribe originally wrote “//The tale of the | Chanouns yeman,” but crossed it out and corrected it to read “// The tale of the | Manciple.”
The scribe has an interesting tendency to indicate transposed lines by marking four consecutive lines, with the transposed lines being the second and third, thus: “a c b d.” Many of the glosses, foliations, and running heads have left offsets on the facing pages.

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION:
Materials:  
Paper, folded 2°, but most are evidently half-sheets, sewn through the sides (“stab sewn” or “oversewn”) of “gatherings” rather than in the center of the fold.
Paper stock(s):
1. Grapes (“Raisin”), nearest Briquet 13002 (1460), but the mirror image (possibly the twin) of the Briquet mark. The mark is centered between chainlines 3.6 cm apart (cf. numbers 188-189 [1477] in Beazeley’s Tracings of Watermarks at Canterbury): fols. 1-48
2. Grapes (“Raisin”), similar to Briquet 13055 (1453) and 13056 (1460), but bisected by a chainline (chains are 3.6-3.8 cm apart); this mark is very close to unpublished tracings in the Briquet Archive in Geneva: “Papiers Briquet,” Raisin 9131 (Valence 1462) and 22042 (Costance 1465=Gravell Archive GRP.004.1; this is the closest, with chain lines and laid lines identical). See figs. 3-4 (the first a beta-radiographic reproduction of the mark on fol. 52; the second, the Briquet tracing) in Mosser 2001: fols. 50-78; 80-9
3. Dragon (“Basilic”), not in Briquet or Piccard; closest to Briquet 2691, but substantially different. The chainlines are 3.6 cm apart. One crosses the tip of the tail and another bisects the body. The dragon has a very long tail and proportionately small head: fol. 79
4. Bull’s head (“Tête de Boeuf”), nearest Piccard (“Ochsenkopf”) 859 (1452), but it is certainly not from that mold; from the mold side, the left ear and horn touch the chainline. The chainlines are 3.9 cm apart, and the right side of the mark is .5 cm from the righthand chain at its closest. The mark has a lopsided appearance with the left eye and ear slightly higher than the ones on the right, and with more rounded ears than the Piccard mark (cf. nos. 190-191 [1477] in Beazeley’s Tracings of Watermarks at Canterbury). The cross is also off-center and the lower, righthand section is bent: fols. 103-149
5. Mountains/Three hills (“Monts”), nearest Briquet 11894 (1430): there is no cross; the rod is 5.5 cm high, and the chainlines 2.7 cm apart with middle chain bisecting the mark. While not matching precisely the Briquet mark, it is the closest in measurements and general structure. The mark is best seen on fol. 292, where it appears unobscured by text, inverted, with the mold side on the recto: fols. 151-298
6. Sun, with letters (cf. numbers 178-181 [1473-5] in Beazeley’s Tracings of Watermarks at Canterbury). Cf. Briquet “Lettres assemblées” 9477 (variations from 1466-1479). This mark is virtually identical with a tracing in the Briquet Archive in Geneva: “Papiers Briquet,” “2 ou plusieurs lettres” 6908 (1477). The identical mark occurs in Ph²: fols. 299-341
Page Size:  
27.8 x 20.5 cm (“Chancery”).
Collation:
The construction is bizarre, employing mostly half-sheet singletons, with the possible exceptions of Quires [14] and [17]. The gatherings are sewn through the sides of the leaves rather than through the centers of bifolia; thus, the sewing is visible between gatherings rather than in the middle. Watermarked folios are bold-faced in the following collation:
[1]11 fols. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
[2]7 fols. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
[3]14 fols. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
[4]11 fols. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
[5]12 fols. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
[6]14 fols. 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
[7]14 fols. 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
[8]13 fols. 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
[9]12 fols. 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
[10]14 fols. 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122
[11]15 fols. 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137
[12]11 fols. 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148
[13]17 fols. 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165
[14]18 fols. 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183
[15]16 fols. 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199
[16]15 fols. 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214
[17]18 fols. 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232
[18]18 fols. 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
[19]14 fols. 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264
[20]17 fols. 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 277 278 279 280 281
[21]16 fols. 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297
[22]10 fols. 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307
[23]9 fols. 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316
[24]13 fols. 17 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329
[25]10 fols. 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339
[26]2 fols. 240 341 (originally a four?)
Format:
Single columns, 33-40 lines, unruled. Written space measures approximately 21.5 x 13 cm. Foliated in roman numerals by the scribe. Running heads, written by the scribe in the same ink as the text at the upper right on rectos. CT begins with the unusual incipit: “Incipit Liber Galstid Chaucer de gestis peregrinor[um] versus Cantuariam.” A space for a 6-line initial is provided, with a guide letter, but never executed. The MS contains a very full glossing apparatus (see Schibanoff 1988). Glosses are written between the outside of the written space and the fore-edge, often trimmed. Many of the glosses appear to have been added in a different shade of ink. Hash marks for [unexecuted] paraphs precede each gloss. The only surviving catchword is on fol. 74v, which is not the end of a gathering.
Hand(s):
One scribe writing in a secretary hand of the second half of the fifteenth century. The typical secretary features include the long, tapering descenders on f, long s, long r, and p, single-lobed a, tailed g, short r with a thick “vertical” stroke that curves upward from the bottom and almost touches the head stroke, and the double-v-shaped w. Letter body size is 1.5-2 mm in the first part of the MS and 1-1.5 mm at the point Manly-Rickert believed a second scribe began work on fol. 274r, where the ink becomes darker and some different letter forms are used (1:144). But all of these variant forms–i.e., for w, v, d–occur infrequently prior to the “change.” It would appear that some time elapsed between one phase of copying and the resumption, and that the scribe then exhibited a preference for letter forms that were being experimented with earlier. The earlier forms can also be found after 274r. See Mosser 2005 for an analysis of the hands and language.
Decoration:
None.
Binding:
Eighteenth-century russia, gilt tooled, sewn on five thongs (becoming detached). Marbled pastedowns. The first leaf has a “VI” countermark (cf. number 325 [1595] in Beazeley’s Tracings of Watermarks at Canterbury); ii-iv have a “Fleur-de-Lis” (cf. number 324 [1595] in Beazeley’s Tracings of Watermarks at Canterbury.)

HISTORY:
Date:
s. XV4/4
Language: 
Suffolk (LALME LP 8301). I argue in Mosser 2005 that the language is that of the exemplar shared by En³ and its sister MS Ad¹.
Provenance:
Little is known about the early history of the MS. On the inside front cover is a bookplate: “FROM THE LIBRARY OF | LAURENCE W. HODSON, | COMPTON HALL, NEAR | WOLVERHAMPTON.” The torn upper right corner of fol. iir has the remains of “Henry D. Ingilby | Ripley Castle | Yorkshire.” In the center of the same page is “Purchased at Sotheby’s | 3 Dec. 1906 | [Hodson sale, lot 116 (“319” crossed out)].” In the gutter of fol. 131v is “Thomas.” In the margin on fol. 132r is “This is John[flourish].” Below, in a different hand is “[?]wamymy,” and below that “The Donc[er]es”[?]. In the margin of fol. 172v, partially rubbed, is “Josephc | Jai[?]ck.” Upside-down in the margin of fol. 235v is “+In the name of | god & man |Ioh | Iohn.”
The thoroughness of the glossing apparatus, sharing “over fifty nontraditional glosses” with Ad¹, and the fact that their content reveals a familiarity with the Vulgate, suggests that the compiler of the exemplar for En³-Ad¹ was an educated person, perhaps a cleric (Partridge 1992, p. 2-12). The MS was sold in the Askew sale in 1785 (Sotheby’s, no. 313, for £3. 10 s.) to Lowes (Manly-Rickert 1:635). Sold in 1787 by the Rev. Mr. Edwards of Jesus College (no. 1505), Oxford, perhaps to Sir Henry Ingilby (or an intermediary), of Ripley Castle, Yorkshire. Acquired by the British Museum at the sale of Lawrence W. Hodson (whose bookplate is on the inside cover), from Sotheby’s, December 3, 1906 (Manly-Rickert 1:147).

References:
Hammond, Eleanor P. Chaucer: A Bibliographical Manual. 1908; rpt. New York: Peter Smith, 1933.  197-8.
Manly, John M., and Edith Rickert, eds. The Text of the Canterbury Tales: Studied on the Basis of All Known Manuscripts. 8 vols. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1940. 1:143-7.
McCormick, Sir William and Janet E. Heseltine. The Manuscripts of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales: A Critical Description of Their Contents. Oxford: Clarendon, 1933. 137-45.
McIntosh, Angus, M. L. Samuels, and Michael Benskin, eds. A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English. 4 vols. Aberdeen: Aberdeen Univ. Press, 1986. LP 8301.
Mosser, Daniel W. “The Charles-Moïse Briquet Watermark Archive in Geneva.” Looking at Paper: Evidence & Interpretation. Symposium Proceedings. Toronto, 1999. Ottawa: Canadian Conservation Institute, 2001. 122-7. 
Mosser, Daniel W. “‘The Chronicles of Saints and Kings of England’: Two Occurrences of the Middle English Prose Brut’s ‘Peculiar Version’ in MSS of the Canterbury Tales.” The Journal of the Early Book Society 5 (2002): 145-9. 
Mosser, Daniel W. “The Scribe(s) of British Library MSS Egerton 2864 and Additional 5140: To ‘Lump’ or ‘Split’?” Journal of the Early Book Society 8 (2005): 215-28. 
Owen, Charles A., Jr. The Manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1991. 87-92.
Schibanoff, Susan. “The New Reader and Female Textuality in Two Early Commentaries on Chaucer.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 10 (1988): 71-108. 
Seymour, Michael C. A Catalogue of Chaucer Manuscripts. Volume II, The Canterbury Tales. Aldershot and Brookfield: Scolar Press, 1997. 111-16.