<Preliminary introduction>

The HOLLIS cataloguing may be found here. The following items are worth repeating:

“Description: [268] leaves ; 27 cm.

“Notes: Illuminated initials throughout.

“Summary: The first 18 leaves are blank; an index follows on leaves 20r-22v. Preceded by some 15th century additions. Manuscript ends on leaf 250v, followed by 18 blank leaves.”

The cataloguing in Baker’s English Legal Manuscripts, 1, no. 91 reads as follows:

“REGISTRUM BREVIUM

“MS. 155.

“Late C.xiv, 268 ff., illum, initial. The first writ, concerning land in Lincolnshire, is tested 11 March 7 Richard II [1384]. Preceded by some C.xv additions.

“‘Seynt Germeyn’ (C.xv, on a label on fo. 42), possibly Christopher St German (d. 1540) of the Middle Temple; ‘Spertegrave’ (C.xv), on a label on fo. 120 (and two similar labels erased); ‘Thomas Rudston’ (C.xvi), probably the one (d. 1556) adm. Gray’s Inn 1521 from Thavies Inn; sold at S. 31 July 1934, no. 302, to Sweet & Maxwell for HLS. Received 2 Jan. 1935.

“Census, III, 2305, no. 155; Early Registers, xxvi.”

The manuscript is approximately 270 X 200 mm.

The binding is leather with tooled covers. It seems to be of some antiquity, though it is not medieval. It may have been ‘recycled’ from another book or manuscript. That would account for the 36 blank paper leaves, 18 in the front, 18 in the back, far more than would be necessary to protect the parchment manuscript, but perhaps necessary to fill in a binding that was too large for the manuscript.

There is a modern pencilled foliation in the upper-right hand corner. It foliates everything, including the blank leaves and the tipped-in fragments. We would not have foliated the manuscript that way, but the foliation is there, and we made our digital foliation correspond to it. There is another foliation of considerably greater antiquity that begins with ‘2’ on the second folio of the main register and continues regularly until fol. 230r of our foliation (‘197’). This foliation corresponds to the one used in the index.

The quiring of the manuscript is difficult to discern from the images, and what we have done must be regarded as quite tentative. That of the 36 blank leaves is of no particular interest. Prior to the initial writ of right on fol. 34r, there are 14 leaves (fol. 20–33) that contain an index of writs, a small collection of treatises (of which more below), and a small collection of additional writs, all in a somewhat later hand than that of the main manuscript. Lacking any visual evidence of the quiring that we could discern from the images, we assumed that each of these pieces is a separate quire. (Arithmetically, and less complicatedly, they could be a single monstrous 14-folio quire.) The main manuscript has signature marks, in alphabetical order from ‘a’ through ‘x’. The majority of these signature marks can be made to correspond to quaternions. There are two that correspond to sesternions and one to a quinternion.

There are three quires (nos. 23–25) between signature ‘t’ and signature ‘x’. The first of them is marked with a ‘v’ but it does not have the usual ‘j’, ‘ij’, ‘iij’, and ‘iiij’ on the first and following rectos. What seem to be the beginnings of quires 24 and 25 are not marked at all. This would seem to be inserted material. This would seem to be inserted material. Quire 23 begins with new material, but quire 25 carries over into to signature ‘x’. That suggests that the insertion was made as the manuscript was being composed. Signature mark ‘n ij’ seems to be duplicated, and the way in which it is done suggests that material was inserted between the two signature marks in order to make up what is now signature ‘n’, a regular quaternion.

Quire 27, a ternion, is almost entirely blank. Quire 28 begins in a new hand, and it and quire 29 are clearly later additions. They are not much later in their contents. The final writ on quire 29 (fol. 249v), an addition to the addition, postdates 1399 and is written in a later script than the rest of the quire. (It probably should not be used for dating even the additions both because of the script and also because it seems to be a note that a later owner put in about a real case.) Quires 28 and 29 may have been added to the manuscript at some later date, however. The original foliation ends on the first folio of quire 27, and none of the writs on quires 28 and 29 is found in the index, which seems to date from the mid- to late-15th century.

Putting all of this information together, and keeping in mind that all of this is subject to revision when the manuscript can be checked in situ, we get the following collation:

1⁴ (f. 20–22, lacks one, probably after 22), 2⁶ (f. 23–28), 3⁶ (f. 29–33, lacks one, probably after 33), 4–7⁸ (f. 34–65), 8¹² (f. 66–77), 9–10⁸ (f. 78–93), 11¹⁰ (f. 94–103), 12⁸ (f. 104–111), 13¹² (f. 112–123), 14–21⁸ (f. 124–187), 22¹⁰ (f. 188–197), 23–26⁸ (f. 198–229), 27–28⁶ (f. 230–241), 29⁸ (f. 242–249).

There is some evidence in the images of leaves having been cut out, and if they were, others would have to have been added to get a collation as regular as this. More work needs to be done on the collation.

There are two fragments that seem to have been tipped in, one between initial set of the blank freestanding endpapers (fol. 19), the other just before the beginning of the final set of freestanding endpapers (fol. 250). The first notes in a medieval script that the precium huius libri is 26s; the second has a small amount of medieval writing at the bottom suggesting that it was torn out of a medieval quire.

Despite what the HOLLIS catalogue says, there is only one illuminated capital, the ‘R’ for ‘Ricardus’ on the initial writ of right patent in the main manuscript. It is quite handsome, with scrollwork and gold leaf.

The contents of the medieval folios that precede the main register have not previously been described in detail. They include:

(1) an index to the writs in the main register in a fifteenth-century script (fol. 20r–22v);

(2) the treatise known as Modus componenendi brevia (Baker, Cambridge Catalogue 55–6 lists other HLS manuscripts but not this one) (includes marginalia indicating the topics covered; fol. 23r–27r);

(3) the treatise known as Divisiones [or Diffiniciones] brevium (Baker, Cambridge Catalogue 55 lists other HLS manuscripts but not this one) (fol. 27r–27v)

(4) the beginning (one page only) of the treatise known as Hengham parva (fol. 28r).

The copy of Hengham parva was simply not completed rather than having been lost, a number of blank folios follow it (fol. 28v–30r).

After this, there is an additional collection of writs in what seems to be in a slightly earlier script (fol. 30v–33v).

We have found no further indications of provenance other than those that Baker reports. The Spertegrave who appears on fol. 124r (not fol. 120) may be the John Spertegrave who was a party to a fine involving the manor of ‘Westyelling’ in 9 Hen. 4 (1407 X 1408), Cal. Feet Fines London and Middlesex p. 174 no. 58. If so, he may be earliest owner of the basic manuscript. That Thomas Rudston (d. 1556) owned the manuscript in the sixteenth century seems reasonably certain. That Christopher St Germain (d. 1540) did must remain speculative, since all we have is the surname.

It seems likely, though not certain, that the contents of the manuscript as we now have them were put together in the fifteenth century, probably later in the century rather than earlier. The index certainly dates from that time; the copies of the treatises probably do too. The additional writs, both at the beginning and at the end of main text may be earlier, late fourteenth century (except for the very last writ in the additions to register, which must date from after 1399). The conclusion to the Analysis of Writs tries to break the various pieces of the register apart and to say something about them individually.

Since we have not yet found anything more about Spertegrave (not in Baker, Men of Court), it may be dangerous to speculate why this register was put together to start off with. Nonetheless, despite the fancy initial capital, this seems to have been from the beginning a working register. Numerous hands are at work. There are gaps for additional writs which are to be, and, in some cases have been, added in a different hand. The marginalia are in different hands. Corrections were made.

What happened to the basic register (quires 4–27) after it was composed suggests that it might have been particularly useful for Chancery clerks or aspiring Chancery clerks. Even the fact that Hengham parva was not completed points in that direction; we can imagine someone telling the scribe: ‘No, no. I don’t want that, and I’m not going to pay you for it’. What those who used this manuscript in the fifteenth century wanted was a good index to the writs that were in the basic register, more writs than were in the register, and some basic guidance on how writs were written.

No heading found

As noted in the Introduction, the initial writ of right in the register is tested on 11 March 1384. It is addressed to the bailiffs of Lincoln on behalf of one A. de B., with default to the sheriff of Lincoln. We have yet to find anything in the main register that would require a date later than 1384 and hence would tentatively date it shortly after that year. Indeed, there is evidence that the contents of the earlier portions of the register are earlier than 1384. The queen is named ‘phe’, which would be Philippa of Hainault, who died in 1369. The earl of Derby is named Henry, which could be Henry Bolingbroke, who was so styled after 1377, but it is probably Henry Grosmont, because H. earl of Lancaster is named in the next writ. That has to be Henry Grosmont, who died in 1361. We have as found no indications of date in the writs that are added before and after the main register, except, as noted in the Introduction, the final writ in the manuscript, which has to be after 1399, but is clearly a considerably later addition to an already-existing and earlier quire.

The Introduction also suggests that the manuscript as we have it, was not compiled until somewhat later, perhaps quite a bit later, in the 15th century. An index was added at this time, and it is likely that the small collection of treatises and the additional writs at both the beginning and the end were added at this time. In the case of the additional writs and perhaps of the treatises it is likely that what was added were existing quires that were made up earlier in the 15th century or even in the late 14th. Both the contents and the script, at least for the most part, of the additional quires seem to be quite a bit earlier than the script of the index.

The following table gives a rough transcription of the marginalia in the register, including the additional writs, in the order in which they appear on the page. Two counts of the writs are given in the right-hand columns of the table. The first counts all the writs for which there are marginal notes, excluding, however, the notes that labelled ‘Regula’ or ‘Nota’. The second excludes from the total all the writs where the marginal note includes the words ‘eodem’ or ‘aliter’. The conclusion that follows the table discusses the relationship of this register to MS 53, which we dated in 1371, and the three others that we have from the reign of Richard II, HLS MS 165, 168, and 34.