Patterns of Textual Affiliation in the Manuscripts of ... filePatterns of Textual Affiliation in the...

Patterns of Textual Affiliation in the Manuscripts of

Nicholas Love’s Mirror of the Blessed Life of Jesus Christ1

Written by: Professor Michael Sargent (City University of New York)

Code by: Gavin Mitchell, Michael Goodall and Stephen Kelly (Queen's University Belfast)

In forty-nine surviving originally complete manuscripts

and nine early prints, Nicholas Love’s Mirror of the Blessed

Life of Jesus Christ survives in three primary textual forms,

designated α, β and γ. !ese three forms of the text are

distinguishable both in a small number of major textual

variations, and in a very large number of minor verbal

variations. Each of the three major textual groups is

further divisible into two or three sub-groups, designated α1, α2 and α3, β1 and β2, and γ1 and γ2,

respectively. !e α group is a"ested by approximately 360 minor variants throughout the text,2 β by

85, and γ by 180.3 !e γ group is not completely self-consistent: although the group as a whole is

a"ested throughout the text, the γ2 sub-group appears to have been con#ated with β in the la"er half

of the text. Of the three primary groups, it is most probable that β represents Love’s original version

and that α represents later, authorial revision, while γ is scribal in origin. All three of the major

versions of the text are found in manuscripts dating from the beginning of the $%eenth century, and

all three are a"ested in numerous independent variants; whenever two of them agree against the

third, the evidence of the underlying Latin text shows that the unique reading is in error. !is, and

the fact that the number of representative manuscripts of each group is large enough to justify the

use of recension in establishing the text in places where there is no Latin to refer to, provides us with

the basis for a critical text in all but the small number of major textual variations.

Two of the major affiliational groups of manuscripts of Love’s Mirror are a"ested by early

manuscripts with strong connections to Mount Grace Charterhouse: β1 MS Tk2 belonged to Joan

Holland, the widow of the founder of the house, and α1 MS A1, wri"en perhaps a decade later,

belonged to Mount Grace itself. At least one other α1 manuscript, on the other hand, MS Ad1, is

older than A1, and may date to the same decade as Tk2; and MS Mu probably belonged to Margaret

Neville, the wife of !omas Beaufort, the ‘second founder’ of Mount Grace a%er the Lancastrian

accession. Two other β1 manuscripts, the early $%eenth-century MS Bc, and its later descendent MS

Ad3, are the only copies to name Nicholas Love as the author. One other early manuscript with an

http://www.qub.ac.uk/geographies-of-orthodoxy/resources/affiliations.php

1

Patterns of Textual Affiliation in the Manuscripts of Nicholas Love’s Mirror of the Blessed Life of Jesus Christ by Michael Sargent and collaborators is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/


http://www.qub.ac.uk/geographies-of-orthodoxy/

http://www.qub.ac.uk/geographies-of-orthodoxy/







important connection is the β2 MS Fo, which belonged to Sybil de Felton, abbess of the Benedictine

convent of Barking, who died in 1419. Although the γ group is also a"ested in two manuscripts from

the beginning of the century, MSS Ar2 and Tr2, this group does not have the kind of connections

with Mount Grace that both α and β have, nor does it have their steady pa"ern of transmission: the

bulk of the γ manuscripts were not copied until the second quarter of the $%eenth century.

!e overall shape of the Mirror is stable: it is almost invariably preceded by a Table of Contents, and

comprises chapters of meditations divided according to the days of the week, such that Monday

occupies the narrative up to the birth of Jesus, his circumcision, the Epiphany, and the presentation

in the temple (Candlemas). Tuesday comprises the narrative from the #ight into Egypt through

Jesus’ baptism; Wednesday begins with Jesus’ temptation in the desert,

and continues through the years of Jesus’ public ministry, concluding

with the conversion of Mary Magdalene (with the addition of a defence

of oral confession), Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman at

the well, and the disciples’ plucking grain in the $elds on the Sabbath.

!ursday begins with the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and

$shes, contains the chapter on Martha and Mary (which includes, in

both the Latin and English versions, a discussion of the active and

contemplative lives) and the raising of Lazarus (which gives occasion

for a further defence of oral confession), and ends with the Last Supper

and its discussion of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Friday comprises

the meditations on the Passion, beginning with the agony in the

garden, and ending with the return of Mary, John and the other women to Jerusalem a%er the burial

of Jesus. !e single chapter for Saturday narrates what Mary and the apostles did on that day, and

Jesus’ descent into hell. !e Sunday section comprises the apocryphal account of Jesus’ appearance

to his mother, the canonical accounts of the resurrection and the appearances of Jesus to his apostles

and disciples, the Ascension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Love then adds a

further chapter for the feast of Corpus Christi, the ‘Treatise on the Sacrament’. !e major variations

in the text are as follows.

$e ‘A%ende’ note and the ‘N–B’ annotations4

Following the Table of Contents in all non-acephalous α and β manuscripts, but only in γ2 MSS Pm2

and Sc (which are elsewhere con#ated with β1), is the ‘A"ende’ note, which describes how Love has


2

Click here to view the Map of Affiliations (requires live

internet connection and browser equipped with

Adobe Flash

http://www.qub.ac.uk/geographies-of-orthodoxy/resources/affiliations/map/




signaled various additions that he has made to the text by a marginal ‘N’ where his insertion begins,

and a ‘B’ where he returns to his pseudo-Bonaventuran source (p. 7, ll. 1-8):

A"ende lector huius libri prout sequitur in Anglico scripti, quod vbicumque in margine

ponitur litera N verba sunt translatoris siue compilatoris in Anglicis preter illa que inseruntur

in libro scripto secundum communem opinionem a venerabili doctore Bonauentura in

Latino de meditacione vite Jesu Christi. Et quando peruenitur ad processum & verba

eiusdem doctoris inseritur in margine litera B, prout legenti siue intuenti istum librum

speculi vite Christi lucide poterit apparere.5

Although there is a fair amount of individual variation in the ‘N–B’ notes (e.g. the simple initials ‘N’

and ‘B’ alternating with ‘N.B.’ or ‘B.N.’, or ‘N’ transcribed as ‘nota’), they are present in some form at

the same points in the text in even the earliest manuscripts, and would thus have been authorial.

Since, without the ‘A"ende’ note, the meaning of these marginal initials would only have been clear

to the author or someone in personal communication with him (or someone who, having compared

the Middle English text with the underlying Latin, noticed the coincidence of the initials with the

variation of the Middle English text from its original), and since the ‘A"ende’ note occurs in the

earliest manuscripts of all affiliational groups, it, too, must have been in the archetype, and its lack in

all γ1 manuscripts, as well as in γ2 MS Tr2, must have been by omission in the hype-archetype of γ.

$e ‘Memorandum of Approbation’

A particularly signi$cant fact of the textual history of Love’s Mirror is the absence in the earliest

manuscripts of all affiliational groups of the ‘Memorandum’ recording Archbishop Arundel’s

approval of its publication (p. 7, ll. 9-21):

Memorandum quod circa annum domini Millesimum quadringentesimum decimum,

originalis copia huius libri, scilicet Speculi vite Christi in Anglicis presentabatur Londoniis

per compilatorem eiusdem .N. Reuerendissimo in Christo patri & domino, Domino !ome

Arundell, Cantuarie Archiepiscopo, ad inspiciendum & debite examinandum antequam

fuerat libere communicata. Qui post inspeccionem eiusdem per dies aliquot retradens ipsum

librum memorato eiusdem auctori proprie vocis oraculo ipsum in singulis commendauit &

approbauit, necnon & auctoritate sua metropolitica, vt pote catholicum, puplice

communicandum fore decreuit & mandauit, ad $delium edi$cacionem, & hereticorum siue

lollardorum confutacionem. Amen.6

!e Mirror had thus begun to circulate before the ‘original copy’ that the ‘Memorandum’ speaks of

had been presented to Archbishop Arundel, or at least before it was thought important to record that


3

fact in the individual manuscripts. !e majority of manuscripts with the ‘Memorandum’ were in fact

produced during the archbishopric of Arundel’s successor, Henry Chichele (1414-43). Neither of

the two manuscripts dated (on paleographic and art-historical grounds) to the beginning of the

$%eenth century have the ‘Memorandum’; of those produced later in the $rst quarter of the century,

MS Mu, which probably belonged to Margaret Neville, the wife of !omas Beaufort, lacked the

‘Memorandum’ as, originally, did MS A1, into which it has been added by another hand. All later

manuscripts, as well as the incunabula, which also belong to the α1 affiliational group, have it. No α2

manuscript of whatever date has the ‘Memorandum’; all complete α3 manuscripts do. In the α textual

tradition, the ‘Memorandum’ invariably follows the ‘A"ende’ note, a%er the Table of Contents, at the

head of the text. Two-thirds of the β manuscripts lack the ‘Memorandum’: it occurs in only one β1

copy of the $rst quarter of the $%eenth century, MS Ry2, and four other, later manuscripts; it is not

found in the β2 affiliational group. In β, the ‘Memorandum’ occurs following the ‘Treatise on the

Sacrament’, at the end of the text. !e ‘Memorandum’ also occurs at the end of the text in one-third

of the γ manuscripts: the mid- to late-$%eenth century γ1 MSS Tr1 and Ha, and the three mid-

century London γ2 MSS Wa, Pm2 and Sc. All of these manuscripts show evidence elsewhere of

contamination with the β tradition; other γ manuscripts lack the ‘Memorandum’.

As a whole, the evidence suggests that greater care was taken to ensure that the ‘Memorandum’

accompanied the text of Love’s Mirror in α1 copies than any other affiliational group, or, equally, that

α1 was not widely circulated before the ‘Memorandum’ was added. !e same was probably true of

α3, although the only copy of this group surviving even from the mid-$%eenth century, MS Ad4, is

acephalous, and thus lacks the ‘Memorandum’ in any case. !e hype-archetype of the α2 affiliational

group may already have been wri"en before the ‘Memorandum’ came to be added to the text, on the

other hand, since no copy of this group has it. !e β1 affiliational group, like α1, was already in

circulation before the ‘Memorandum’ was recorded. !e fact that it always follows the ‘Treatise on

the Sacrament’ in the $ve manuscripts in which it occurs (counting the γ1 MS Tr1 here, because it

has a β1 text of the ‘Treatise’) does, though, indicate either that a substantial proportion of the

manuscripts of this group derive from a single hype-archetype in which this addition was made, or at

least that they were transmi"ed in close enough circles that the ‘Memorandum’ could be added in at

the appropriate place, by their several independent scribes. No manuscripts of β2 have the

‘Memorandum’; nor do those of γ, with the exception of MS Tr1, mentioned above, the textually

idiosyncratic MS Ha, and the closely affiliated group Wa, Pm2, Sc.

$e Name of the Book

!e $rst of the major variations within the text of the Mirror is that between the α and β versions of

Nicholas Love’s discussion of the name of his book, in the Proem. In α, this reads (p. 11, ll. 9-18):


4

And so for als miche as in is boke bene contynede diuerse ymaginacions of cristes life, e

which life fro e bygynnyng in to e endyng euer blessede & withoute synne, passyng alle e lifes

of alle oer seyntes, as for a singulere prerogatife, may worily be clepede e blessede life of Jesu

crist, e which also because it may not be fully discriuede as e lifes of oer seyntes, bot in a

maner of liknes as e ymage of mans face is shewed in e mirrroure erfore as for a pertynent

name to is boke, it may skilfully be cleped, e Mirrour of e blessed life of Jesu criste.

A transition sentence follows:

Forermore fort speke of e pro$table matire of is boke e forseide clerke Bonauenture spekyng

to e woman forseide in his proheme bygynne in is manere sentence.

!e β1 version is:7

And so for as moche as in þis boke ben conteyned dyuerse ymaginacions of cristis lyff. As þe

ymage of mannus face is schewed in þe Mirrour þe whiche lyffe. fro þe beguynnynge in to þe

endynge euermore blyssed & withouten synne passynge alle lyues of alle oþere seyntes. as for

a singuler prerogatyffe may worþely be cleped þe blyssed lyfe of Jesu Crist. Þerfore as for a

pertynent name to þis boke it may skylfully be cleped !e mirrour of þe blyssed lyfe of Jesu

Criste.

followed by the same transition sentence. !e β2 version of this passage is essentially the same as β1,

with the omission of the $nal sentence; this same form occurs in γ1 MSS Ar2 and Pm1. !e other γ1

manuscripts, and γ2 MS Ar2, have the α form, without the following transition sentence.

!e β version of the explanation of Love’s title has the advantage of proceeding according to the

order of the terms of the title: Mirror – blessed life – Jesus Christ, and is more obviously connected

verbally to the preceding discussion of the ‘devout imaginations’ that the work comprises. !e α

version, however, is more clear and direct as English prose, although it inverts the order of the terms.

!e β2 version depends on a scribal error: the omission of the phrase between the similar words

‘þerfore’ and ‘Forþermore’. !e γ version equally depends on the same scribal error in reverse: the

omission of the transition sentence in a copy identical to α. Although the variations in β2 and γ are

thus scribal in origin, the variation of α and β1 is stylistic, and in all probability a conscious revision

in one direction or the other, either by Love himself, or some other. In other cases that we shall

consider below, the direction of revision must have been from β to α, and in the present case, an

alteration in the direction of clarity of expression also makes more sense; I should think that Love

$rst wrote the β1 version, and revised the passage later to α.

$e Meditation on the Ave Maria


5

!e ending section of Chapter !ree, on the Annunciation, is different in all three versions of the

text of the Mirror.8 At the close of his translation of this section of the Meditationes Vitae Christi, Love

adds his own meditation on the individual phrases of the Ave Maria, connecting each with one of $ve

virtues (meekness, chastity, faith, hope and charity) and one of the ‘Five Joys of Mary’, ending with a

rhyming, meditative version of the prayer (pp. 30, l. 40-31, l. 12):

Heil Marie maiden mekest.

Gret of [þe] angel gabriel in Jesu graciouse conceyuyng.

Ful of grace as modere chast

without sorow or peyne i son, Jesu blessed beryng.

Oure lord is & was with e

by trew fei at Jesu ioyful vprysyng.

Blessed be ou souereynly in women,

by sadde hope seying i sone Jesu to heuen mihtily vpsteyng.

And blessed be e !uyt of i wombe Jesus,

in euerlastyng blisse orh per$te charite e quene of heuen gloriously cronyng.

Be ou oure help in al oure nede, & socour at our last endynge. Amen.

Manuscripts of β and γ both contain one more rhyme:

Gete us þese vertues as for oure spede / to þi sone Jesu & þi plesynge.

At this point, β1 adds:

!us þenkeþ me may be hadde contemplacioun more conueniently a%ir þe ordre of þe fyue

ioyes of oure lady seynt Marye in þe forseide gretynge Aue Maria &c. þan was byfore wryten

to þe Ankeresse as it scheweþ here / Chese he þat lyste to rede or write þis processe as hym

semeþ best or in oþere be"er manere 3if he kan / so þat be it one be it oþere þat þe ende &

þe entent be to þe worschippe & þe pleisynge of oure lorde Jesu and his blyssed modere

Marye.

Manuscripts of β2 begin the same way, but for the material from ‘þan was byfore wryten’ to the end,

substitute the following:

And þis I sey nou3t to þat entent þat as o%e as þou seyst þis gretynge for to seye it in þis

manere. But whan þe likeþ to haue contemplacyon of hir fyue ioyes & vertues byfore seyde to

stir þi deuocyon þe more to hir worschipe & þi profyte.


6

Manuscripts of both α and β then conclude the chapter (p. 31, ll. 13-20):

Sien en e processe of e blessed Incarnacion of Jesu, & e bygynnyng & mynde of e ioyes of his

blessed modere Marie, & e gronde of sauacion of mankynd is contened in is gospell, Missus

est, as it is seide, & ou hast herd before wi gret deuocion & gostly desire owest ou & euery

cristien creature here is gospel & wirchipe erin Jesu at so bycame man for oure sake, & his

blessed modere Marie to whose wirchipe & pro$te of i soule & myn is short tretyse be

wryten. Amen.

Manuscripts of γ, on the other hand, concludes with a Latin version of the meditation on the Ave

Maria, and without the closing paragraph found in both α and β:

Ave Maria virgo mitissima

digna angelica salutacione

Gracia plena Mater castissima

in tui prolis iocunda generacione

Dominus tecum, $de $rmissima

in tui $lij gloriosa resurreccione

Benedicta tu in mulieribus spe certissima

in eius admiranda assencione

Et benedictus fructus ventris tui Jesus

Caratitate plenissima te coronans in celesti habitacione

Esto nobis auxiliatrix

in omni angustia et temptacione Amen.

As Elizabeth Salter pointed out, the reference to a meditation on the Ave Maria that ‘was byfore

wryten to þe Ankeresse’ in β1 is most probably a comparison – and not a particularly charitable one

– to the meditation on the ‘Five Joys’ in the Ancrene Riwle.9 !e variation among the three versions

obviously represents a revision of the text, rather than scribal error. !e fact that the β version itself

exists in two versions, in one of which (β2, the earliest surviving manuscript of which belonged to

the abbess of Barking) the alteration occludes the comparison with the Ancrene Riwle in the other,

suggests that Love himself may not have been comfortable with the spiritual competitiveness of his

comparison, and wrote it out. In α, the entire paragraph is omi"ed, although the concluding

paragraph that follows does remain. In γ, the entire section is replaced by an easier, safer option: a

Latin translation of the rhymed meditation. It is possible, but ultimately I do not think likely, that

the direction of revision was from α to β2 to β1, with γ as a lateral development; I think it far more

probable, here as elsewhere, that Love has revised from β to α, and that γ represents a possibly


7

scribal (editorial) alternative. Here, as elsewhere, the use of Latin in the text of γ is a possible

indication that its original audience was clerical.

$e Chapter on the Trans&guration

Chapter !irty, on the Trans$guration, may not originally have been included in Love’s Mirror. !e

preceding chapter in the pseudo-Bonaventure, based on the sixteenth chapter of the Gospel of

Ma"hew, was in fact not translated: this is in a way surprising, because it contains Peter’s affirmation

that Jesus was the Son of God, and Christ’s naming of him as ‘Petrus – and upon this rock, etc’.10

!is is, of course, one of the primary texts used in support of papal authority, since it also refers to

the power of binding and unbinding, which is one of two scriptural justi$cations for sacramental

confession. But this element is not mentioned in the pseudo-Bonaventure, which instead proceeds

immediately to Peter’s remonstration with Christ over his prophesy of his coming Passion, and

Christ’s response to that, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan!’ !e Meditationes draws the conclusion from

this that the reader, too, should consider as inimical all that hinders her from her spiritual exercise.

!e immediately following meditation on the Trans$guration is almost cursory, and Love expands it

in his translation to twice its length in the Latin original. Two out of three β2 MSS, Fo and Ch, lack

this chapter; the third, Tk1, together with two of the three earliest β1 MSS, Tk2 and Bc, as well as

three others, Ad3, Hm1 and Tk3 read ‘Of the special reward promised by Christ to those who

forsake the world for his love’ at the end of the preceding chapter – a rubric referring forward to the

following chapter, ‘De probatica piscina’. !is would indicate that the original version of β, and thus

probably of the Mirror itself, probably did not contain the chapter on the Trans$guration.

$e Meditation on the Last Supper and the ‘Memorandum of Approbation’

Love completely rewrote the meditation on the Last Supper (Chapter 39), incorporating a defence

of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, and the doctrine of

transubstantiation. At the center of this defence stands his account of a Eucharistic miracle: that

there is a man whom he knows personally, who when handling the sacrament and meditating on the

Passion, feels the physical presence of Christ poured into his own body – a miracle that Love

considers more convincing than the usual accounts of blood in the chalice or the Christ-child in the

elevated host. He introduces this miracle, ‘in confusion of alle fals lollardes, & in confort of alle trewe

loueres & wirchiperes of þis holy sacrament’ (pl. 152, ll. 13-14). At the end of this section, there is a

paragraph stating that, if God grants him the grace to do so, he will add more on this subject at the

end of his book (p. 154, ll. 3-14):


8

Bot now cese we here awhile of is delectable gostly chewyng & tretynge of is moste deynte &

preciouse mete, & take we hede forermore to e noble lesson at oure lord Jesus tauht hese

disciples erwi, a%er at wori sopere, at is e fere article before seide, with purpose 3it if our

lorde wole sende grace to touche more of is precious sacrament, & at at e last ende of is boke

as in a conclusion of alle e blessede life here bodily of oure lord Jesus, acordyng so with e

gracious & resonable ordinance of holi chirch, of e wori & solempne feste of is blessede

sacrament, as in a per$te conclusione of alle e festes of oure lorde Jesus, whos name blessed

be euere without endyng. Amen.

!is paragraph (the ‘Intention paragraph’) occurs in α, β2 and γ, but not in β1.

!e $nal section of this chapter then treats of Christ’s teaching to his apostles on Faith, Hope and

Love in his $nal supper with them – a passage made up of quotations from the Gospel of John. Here,

as elsewhere in the book, the scriptural references in Latin occur in the text of β and γ, but in the

margins of all α manuscripts.

$e ‘Middle English Meditationes de Passione’

!e manuscript evidence is clear that the hype-archetype of the β tradition contained the ‘Middle

English Meditationes de Passione’. It is equally clear that the presence of this version of the Passion

meditation disrupted the textual order of Nicholas Love’s Mirror: chapter numbering in the text and

headers, in particular, are disordered, although no copy of the Table of Contents re#ects this

disorder.11 In all but one manuscript, the MEMPC originally preceded Love’s version, but was then

excised – leaving various traces of its presence and excision. In MS Ch, which at other points appears

to represent a β text independent of β1 and β2, the MEMPC does not precede Love’s meditation on

the Passion. MS Ch comprises only the MEMPC, and may, at this point, represent the actual hype-

archetype of β – and thus, it would seem, the archetype of the Mirror itself – more closely than any

other.

I cannot think of any reason why the MEMPC should have been added to a complete copy of Love’s

Mirror; but I can imagine a scenario in which it was originally used to complete Love’s Mirror, and

was later replaced. If Nicholas Love was in a hurry to complete his translation of the Meditationes

Vitae Christi – whether in order to present it to Archbishop Arundel or for any other reason – he

might reasonably have availed himself of an already existing translation of the Passion meditation as

a way of bringing his work more quickly to completion. He did not use the $rst chapter of this text,

that on the Last Supper, but he had his own major revisions to make in translation: his version of the

Last Supper chapter contains a long anti-Wycliffite excursus in defence of the real presence of the

body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. But the la"er chapters of the MEMPC were not


9

controversial, and could have been used to move his text signi$cantly closer to completion. Love’s

version of the Passion does, in fact, begin with a characteristic alteration of the text: he moves the

‘Meditation on the Passion in general’ from the position it occupies at the beginning of the Friday

section in the Meditationes Vitae Christi and the MEMPC to a point two chapters later, in the

meditation on the condemnation of Christ to death on the cross.12 For the rest, Nicholas Love’s

version is simply an independent translation of the same material.

$e Displacement of the ‘Meditation on the Passion in General’

In all β and γ manuscripts, there are Latin notes in the Friday section of the text marking Love’s

displacement of the ‘meditation on the Passion in general’ from the beginning of the Passion

narrative to a point just before the Cruci$xion; these do not occur in α. !ere are also two rubricated

sub-divisions in the long $rst chapter of the Friday section in all manuscripts of β and γ, that do not

occur in α.13

$e ‘Transition paragraph’ and the ‘Intention paragraph’

Love closes his translation of the Meditationes Vitae Christi with an ‘explicit paragraph’ that reiterates

the suggestion, derived from the pseudo-Bonaventuran original, that the book be read either

according to the reader’s private devotion, or according to the seasons of the liturgical year, thus

beginning in Advent and ending at Pentecost (p. 220, ll. 22-36):

Þus ende e contemplacion of e blessede life of oure lorde Jesu e which processe for als mich

as it is here us writen in english tonge lengir in many parties & in oere manere an is e latyne

of Bonauenture erfore it seme not conuenient to folowe e processe erof by e dayes of e wike

a%er e entent of e forseide Bonauentur, for it were to tediouse as me inke, & also it shulde so

sone be fulsome & not in confortable deynte by cause of e freelte of mankynde at ha likynge

to here & knowe newe inges. & oo at bene seldome herde bene o% in e more deynte.

Wherefore it seme to me beste at euery deuout creature at loue to rede or here is boke take e

partes erof as it seme moste confortable & stiryng to his deuocion, sumtyme one & symtyme

an oere, & specialy in e tymes of e 3ere & e festes ordeynet in holy chirche, as e matires bene

perteynent to hem.

Following this is another paragraph (the ‘transition paragraph’) that begins with a transition from

the idea of the calendar-order of the work, and proceeds to introduce the following ‘Treatise on the

Sacrament’ as the appropriate reading for the feast of Corpus Christi, the $nal feast of the

Pentecostal season, and thus of the ecclesiastical year (pp. 220, l. 37-221, l. 5):


10

And for als miche as at blessede & wori feste of e precious sacrament of Jesu body, in e

whiche he is euery day bodily present with vs to oure mooste confort at we mowe haue here

in ere is e ende & e conclusion of alle oere festes of him graciously & resonably ordeynet by

holi chirch as it was seide before erfore with e grace of e holi goste & of him of whom at feest

is we shole speke sumwhat more to confort of hem at treuly byleuen, & to confusion of alle

fals lollardes & heritykes Amen.

!is paragraph ends with an echo of both the introduction and the conclusion of his earlier account

of the Eucharistic miracle that he knew of personally, and of the closing phrase of the ‘Memorandum’

of approbation: ‘erfore with e grace of e holi goste & of him of whom at feest is we shole speke

sumwhat more to confort of hem at treuly byleuen, & to confusion of alle fals lollardes & heritykes’ –

‘ad $delium edi$cacionem, & hereticorum siue lollardorum confutacionem.’ At this point follows the

$rst formal explicit of Nicholas Love’s Mirror: ‘Blessede be e name of oure lorde Jesu & his modere

Marye nowe & euere wi out ende Amen. / Explicit speculum vite Christi.’ In three β1 manuscripts,

different combinations of these closing elements are displaced to follow the ‘Treatise’: In MSS Pr

and Ll, the order is: ‘transition paragraph’ – ‘Treatise’ – ‘explicit paragraph’ – ‘Memorandum’; in MS

Ry2, the order is ‘Treatise’ – ‘transition paragraph’ – ‘explicit paragraph’ – ‘Memorandum’. MS Ch, a

β2 manuscript for the text of the Mirror, although not for the ‘Treatise’, lacks the ‘transition

paragraph’. Two γ manuscripts have similar displacements: MS Ln ends at the bo"om of a verso

folio, without either the ‘explicit’ or the ‘transition paragraph’. !e ‘Treatise on the Sacrament’ is

added in another hand, from a β exemplar, without the ‘explicit’ or the ‘transition’ paragraphs, either

before or a%er, or the ‘Memorandum’; and MS Tr1, which also had a β exemplar for the ‘Treatise’,

displaces the ‘transition paragraph’ to follow it, preceding the ‘Memorandum’.

$e ‘Treatise on the Sacrament’

!e inclusion, and the form, of the ‘Treatise on the Sacrament’ varies among the three basic

affiliational groups. With the single exception of MS Wc, all 24 α manuscripts, of whatever sub-

group, have the ‘Treatise’, and all agree in the relatively small number of verbal variations

characteristic of its text in the α tradition. Manuscripts of β, which in its two affiliational sub-groups

comprises $%een manuscripts for the body of the text of the Mirror (that part, that is, that

corresponds to the Meditationes Vitae Christi), is represented by 12 manuscripts in the ‘Treatise’ (MSS

Tk2, Bc, Ld, Ad3, Ya1, Hm1 and Ry2, plus Sc, Ln and Tr1); MS Sc, which is sporadically a β1

manuscript throughout the body of the text, is a β1 in the ‘Treatise’, while MS Sc, its congener, is a

γ2. !e text of the ‘Treatise’ is represented in the idiosyncratically abbreviated MS Ha only by the

‘Prayer to the Sacrament’ with which it ends. MSS Pr and Tk4, which share a number of otherwise

unique readings throughout the text, both change from β1 to γ for the ‘Treatise’, as does MS Bo2. On


11

the other hand, MS Tr1, a γ1 manuscript throughout the text, changes affiliation to β1 for the

‘Treatise’, and in MS Ln, a γ1 manuscript that had originally lacked the ‘Treatise’, another hand has

added it from a β1 exemplar. MS Ch, which varies from β2 to α2 to β throughout the text, has

intervening material – including texts referred to in the Mirror, like Walter Hilton’s ‘Mixed Life’ –

before an α2 text of the ‘Treatise’. !ree manuscripts of the γ affiliational group, which comprises ten

manuscripts throughout the body of the text, plus MSS Sc and Pm2, originally lacked the ‘Treatise’;

as just mentioned, this has been supplied in another hand, from a β1 exemplar, in MS Ln. MS Tr1

changes affiliation from γ1 to β1 for the ‘Treatise’, and three β1 MSS, Pr, Tk4 and Bo2, change

affiliation to γ1 for the ‘Treatise’. !e γ tradition is thus represented by nine manuscripts (MSS Ar2,

Tr2, Fw, Tr1, Wa, Pm2, Pr, Tk4 and Bo2) in the ‘Treatise’.

Two manuscripts of β1, MSS Ya1 and Hm1, share an idiosyncratic truncation of the text of the

‘Treatise’, and in a third, MS Tk3, the ‘Treatise’ is completed, apparently from a γ exemplar, in

another hand. In these copies, the distinctio section of the ‘Treatise’, which treats of the two kinds of

miracles in the sacrament – the inner miracle of transubstantiation itself, and the outer miracles, of

the vision of Christ in the elevation, of #esh and blood in the chalice, or of the release from bondage,

suffering or the pains of Purgatory, of them for whom the sacrament has been offered – breaks off

just before the ending of its $rst section (the transubstantiation itself) with the words, ‘& þerfore

þus I trowe & fully byleue þat it is in soþenes, þouh my kyndely reson a3eyn sey it’, without the $nal

citation of Gregory’s dictum that, ‘Feiþ haþ no merite, to þe which mannus reson 3ifeþ experience (p.

227, ll. 34-35).’ !e opening of the distinctio is marked with a rubric or a marginal note in all three

textual traditions, although MSS Ya1, Hm1, Tk3, Ln and β2 share a placement of the rubric in mid-

sentence, several lines before it usually occurs: ‘!us we hauynge loue drede [of two maner of

mervayles in the holy sacrament] of god...’14 Whether or not this placement of the rubric obscures

the organization of the passage as a whole, it is obvious that the text as it appears in MSS Ya1, Hm1

and Tk3 is incomplete, a fact which some reader of Tk3 recognized, and corrected by copying in the

remainder of the text from another source. In Hm1, the premature ending of the ‘Treatise’ leaves one

line blank on the $nal verso folio, in which the scribe has added his name. In Ya1, the truncated

ending is followed by the blessing that normally ends the body of the text of the Mirror, ‘Blessede be

þe name of oure lorde Jesu & his modere Marye nowe & euere wiþ out ende Amen’,15 and the

‘Memorandum’. !ese three manuscripts must descend from a single copy-text in which the la"er

three-$%hs of the text of the ‘Treatise’ was lacking.

!e fact that all but one of the non-atelous manuscripts of the α affiliational group contain the

‘Treatise on the Sacrament’, and that α manuscripts of the body of the text are also α for the

‘Treatise’, while fully one-third (eight out of 24) of the non-atelous manuscripts of β and γ either

lack the ‘Treatise’ or change affiliation,16 suggests strongly that the ‘Treatise’ was always an integral


12

part of the text in α, but not in β and γ. To put it another way: the ‘Treatise’ was certainly in the

hype-archetype of α, but not necessarily in those of β and γ – which strengthens the observation

made above, that the paragraph in the chapter on the Last Supper in which Nicholas Love recorded

his intention to treat further of the sacrament of the altar at the end of "e Mirror of the Blessed Life of

Jesus Christ represents a change in his original plan.

On the other hand, we must note that the earliest manuscripts of whatever affiliational sub-groups of

β and γ, like α, do in fact contain the ‘Treatise on the Sacrament’ – wri"en in the hand of the scribe

of the body of the text in each. !is evidence leads to the conclusion that although the hype-

archetypes of β and γ probably did not contain the ‘Treatise’, care was taken to ensure that when it

was added to the text, all copies should have it. !e fact that the ‘Treatise’ was copied in as an

integral part of the Mirror by the scribe of the body of the text in all of the earliest manuscripts of α, β

and γ shows that no version of the text could have been in circulation for very long before the

‘Treatise’ was added to the hype-archetype.

$e Marginal Apparatus

!e marginal notes to texts of the Mirror are also relatively stable, and must be treated as a part of the

text itself, for all textual-critical purposes. !ere are six categories of notes: simple identi$cations of

the underlying biblical narrative, or quotation of a text cited from scripture; identi$cation of non-

scriptural auctoritates; topical notes, directing the reader’s a"ention to doctrinal points (e.g.

‘Paupertas Christi’; editorial notes, referring the progress of Love’s narrative to that of his original;

‘N–B’ notes that, as described in the ‘A"ende’ note, identify Love’s additions to the pseudo-

Bonaventuran text (these also o%en take the form ‘N.B.’ or ‘B.N.’, as well as the single initials ‘N’ and

‘B’); and various forms of ‘Nota’, ‘nota bene’, or ‘notabile’. For comparative purposes, the totals of the

annotations in A1, Tk2 and Ar2, early representatives of the α, β and γ textual traditions with full

marginal apparatus, are as follows.

A1 (592 notes total):A1 (592 notes total):A1 (592 notes total):A1 (592 notes total):A1 (592 notes total):A1 (592 notes total):A1 (592 notes total):Section of text Scriptural citations Auctoritates Topics Editorial N-B NotaMonday 13 19 55 0 12 10Tuesday 6 1 33 0 2 2Wednesday 4 15 62 4 10 5Thursday 19 24 81 4 33 12Friday 25 0 20 1 14 0Saturday 0 0 2 0 2 0Sunday 14 14 34 1 14 6Treatise' 2 3 13 0 0 1Totals: 83 76 300 10 87 36


13

Tk2 (655 notes total):Tk2 (655 notes total):Tk2 (655 notes total):Tk2 (655 notes total):Tk2 (655 notes total):Tk2 (655 notes total):Tk2 (655 notes total):Section of text Scriptural citations Auctoritates Topics Editorial N-B NotaMonday 17 25 65 1 12 9Tuesday 6 6 43 0 0 7Wednesday 4 20 75 4 6 9Thursday 3 39 102 0 22 11Friday 18 5 23 0 12 1Saturday 0 0 1 0 2 0Sunday 12 20 37 0 14 5Treatise' 2 5 10 0 0 2Totals: 62 120 356 5 68 44

Ar2 (558 notes total):Ar2 (558 notes total):Ar2 (558 notes total):Ar2 (558 notes total):Ar2 (558 notes total):Ar2 (558 notes total):Ar2 (558 notes total):Section of text Scriptural citations Auctoritates Topics Editorial N-B NotaMonday 14 11 26 3 0 3Tuesday 6 3 43 0 0 2Wednesday 3 17 70 3 5 9Thursday 5 32 90 0 26 11Friday 16 0 30 0 10 1Saturday 0 0 2 0 2 0Sunday 12 13 48 0 12 6Treatise' 1 3 14 0 0 0Totals: 57 79 323 6 55 38

It is apparent from this comparison, which is borne out amongst the manuscripts of the three

affiliational groups, whatever their individual vagaries, that α has approximately 50 more marginal

annotations than γ, and β has approximately 60 more than α. !e difference between β on the one

hand, and α and γ on the other, is particularly great among those identifying auctoritates. Of the

marginalia noting topics of discussion throughout the text, γ has 23 more than α, and β 23 more than

γ. !e number of scriptural quotations in the margin is greater in α, since β and γ both tend to

incorporate direct quotations, especially of the words of Jesus, into the text itself. More of the

editorial directions occur in the margin in α, again because β and γ manuscripts tend to have them as

in-text rubrics. !e numbers of ‘N–B’ notes throughout the text, with exception only of the Saturday

and Sunday sections, are greater in α; β, on the other hand, lacks ‘N–B’ notes in the Monday section.

!e text of the marginal notes in the three affiliational groups does, however, show a relatively high

degree of uniformity in a part of the text that might normally be expected to be quite unstable.

Conclusion – the ‘originalis copia huius libri’

It seems probable that the reference in the ‘Memorandum’ to Nicholas Love’s presentation of the

‘original copy’ of his book to Archbishop Arundel re#ects the fact that, by the time that

memorandum was wri"en, "e Mirror of the Blessed Life of Jesus Christ already existed in more than one

authorial form: an earlier dra% most similar to β, insofar as can be reconstructed from the surviving

manuscripts, and a revised version most similar to α. !e original copy opened with a Table of


14

Contents and the ‘A"ende’ note, had the β-form of the explanation of the name of the book in its

Proem, the β1-form of the end of the chapter on the Annunciation, with its comparison of Love’s

meditation on the Ave Maria with that ‘wri"en to the anchoress’, and the ‘Middle English Meditationes

de Passione Domini’ for the treatment of the Passion meditation; but that it lacked the ‘Intention

paragraph’and (probably) the ‘Treatise on the Sacrament’. Love later revised the explanation of the

title and the ending section of the chapter on the Annunciation, and added the ‘Intention’ paragraph,

his own version of the Passion meditation, and the ‘Treatise on the Sacrament’. !e verbal echoes of

Love’s introduction to his defense of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the

Eucharist, ‘for the edi$cation of the faithful, and the confusion of heretics and Lollards’ and the

‘Memorandum’ and the ‘Transition paragraph’ suggest that the la"er two borrowed from the former,

and this, together with the echo of the statement of his intention to add a chapter for the feast of

Corpus Christi (i.e. the ‘Treatise on the Sacrament’) in the ‘Intention paragraph’ and the ‘Transition

paragraph’, as ‘the end and conclusion of all other feasts of him, graciously and reasonably ordained

by Holy church,’ suggests that all of these revisions to the text of the Mirror were made are about the

same time, shortly a%er he had received Arundel’s enthusiastic approbation. !e hype-archetype of

α, $nally, into which all of these elements have been incorporated, with remarkably li"le variation

evident among the surviving manuscript representatives, must represent the author’s revised version

of the text.

Footnotes

1 !is discussion is adapted from Nicholas Love: !e Mirror of the Blessed Life of Jesus Christ. A Full Critical Edition, based on

Cambridge University Library Additional MSS 6578 and 6686 with Introduction, Notes and Glossary, ed. by Michael G. Sargent,

Exeter Medieval Texts and Studies (University of Exeter Press, 2005), pp. intro 138-145, into 187-198.

2 Including, in particular, the omission of all Latin quotations, which normally precede Love’s Latin translations in β and

γ, but are almost all removed to the marginal apparatus in α.

3 In collation, every variant was registered that occurred in any of the three earliest manuscripts of each affiliational sub-

group, including all manuscripts wri"en in the $rst quarter-century of dissemination of the text (a total of 27 MSS: α1

MSS A1, A2, Ad1, Mu, Hm2 and Uc; all α2 and α3 MSS; β1 MSS Tk2, Bc, Ld and Ad3; all β2 MSS; γ1 MSS Ar2, Bo1,

Ad2 and Ln; and γ2 MSS Tr2 and Wa), on the principle that no reading failing to occur in any of these was likely to be

authoritative for that sub-group. All other manuscripts were then collated against this, but readings occurring only in

later manuscripts, unless demonstrating convergent variation among affiliational groups or sub-groups, persistent

agreement with one of the early manuscripts within a sub-group, or (considerably less o%en) persistent agreement

among pairs of later manuscripts, were registered only sporadically.

4 I have explored the relationship of Love’s text to its Latin sources and auctoritates further in ‘Nicholas Love’s Mirror of the

Blessed Life of Jesus Christ and the Politics of Vernacular Translation in Late Medieval England’, in Lost in Translation?, !e

Medieval Translator vol. 12, ed. Denis Renevey and Christiania Whitehead (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009), pp. 205-21.


15

5 Note, reader of the following book wri"en in English, that wherever there is a le"er ‘N’ in the margin, the words are

added by the translator or compiler beyond those in the Latin book of the Meditation of the Life of Christ wri"en, according

to common opinion, by the venerable doctor Bonaventure. And when it returns to the narrative and words of that doctor,

then there will be a le"er ‘B’ in the margin, as will be readily apparent to whoever reads or examines this book of !e

Mirror of the Blessed Life of Jesus Christ.

6 Memorandum: that about the year 1410, the original copy of this book, that is, !e Mirror of the Life of Christ in English,

was presented in London by its compiler, N, to the Most Reverend Father and Lord in Christ, Lord !omas Arundel,

Archbishop of Canterbury, for inspection and due examination before it was freely communicated. Who a%er examining

it for several days, returning it to the abovementioned author, commended and approved it personally, and further

decreed and commanded by his metropolitan authority that it rather be published universally for the edi$cation of the

faithful and the confutation of heretics or lollards. Amen.

7 β1 is cited from Tk2.

8 See Mirror, pp. 28.11-31.20.

9 See Salter, Nicholas Love’s ‘Myrrour’: p. 33. !e passage referred to is in !e English Text of the Ancrene Riwle, ed. Mabel Day,

EETS os 225 (1952), pp. 16.14-17.27.

10 Meditationes Vitae Christi, pp. 155-56; the abbreviation of the dictum on the foundation of the Church is from the Latin

text.

11 !is is not in fact problematic, since a Table of Contents is usually easier to compile a%er the book has been

completed, and easier to copy than to re-compile.

12 See text below, pp. 160.38-40, 172.19-21 and Notes.

13 See the rubrics at Mirror, p. 162.12, 165.6 and 172.19-21.

14 Cited from MS Ya1 (brackets added); see Mirror, p. 226.21.

15 See Mirror, p. 221.6-7.

16 Sc and Pm2 are not counted as changing here, since they have the same affiliation for the ‘Treatise’ as for the

immediately preceding section of the body of the text. If they are counted, then it is ten out of twenty-four β and γ

manuscripts that change affiliation.


16

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buithien
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Patterns of Textual Affiliation in the Manuscripts of ... filePatterns of Textual Affiliation in the...

Documents