Early English Meals and Manners Part 13

Now good son, y haue shewed the / & brought e in vre, to know e Curtesie of court / & these ow may take in cur{e}, In pantry / botery / or celler{e} / & in kervyng{e} a-for{e} a sovereyn{e} demewr{e}, A sewer / or a m{er}shall{e}: in es science / y suppose ye byn sewr{e},

Which in my dayes y lernyd with{e} a prynce full{e} royall{e}, with whom vscher{e} in chambur was y, & m{er}shalle also in hall{e}, vnto whom all{e} ese officer{es} for{e}seid / ey eu{er} ente{n}de shall{e}, Evir to fulfill{e} my co{m}maundement when at y to em call{e}:

For we may allow & dissalow / our{e} office is e cheeff In celler{e} & spicery / & the Cooke, be he looth{e} or leeff.

(l. 1173-82.)

Further on, at line 1211, he says,

"Moor{e} of is co{n}nyng{e} y Cast not me to contreve: my tyme is not to tary, hit drawest fast to eve.

is tretyse at y haue ent.i.tled, if it ye entende to p{re}ve, y a.s.sayed me self in youth{e} w{i}t{h}-outen any greve.

while y was yong{e} y-nough{e} & l.u.s.ty in dede, y enioyed ese maters foreseid / & to lerne y toke good hede; but croked age hath{e} co{m}pelled me / & leue court y must nede.

erfor{e}, son{e}, a.s.say thy self / & G.o.d shall{e} be y spede."

And again, at line 1227,

"Now, good son, thy self, w{i}t{h} other {a}t shall{e} e succede, which{e} us boke of nurtur{e} shall{e} note / lerne, & ou{er} rede, pray for the sowle of Iohn Russell{e}, at G.o.d do hym mede, Som tyme s{er}uaunde w{i}t{h} duke vmfrey, duc[A] of Glowcet{ur} in dede.

For at prynce pereles prayeth{e} / & for suche other mo, e sowle of my wife / my fadur and modir also, vn-to Mary modyr and mayd / she fende us from owr{e} foe, and bryng{e} vs all{e} to blis when we shall{e} hens goo. =AMEN=."

[Text Note: The _duc_ has a red stroke through it, probably to cut it out.]

As to his Boke, besides what is quoted above, John Russell says,

Go forth{e} lytell{e} boke, and lowly ow me co{m}mende vnto all{e} yong{e} gentilmen / {a}t l.u.s.t to lerne or entende, and specially to em at han exsperience, p{ra}yng{e} e[m] to amend{e} and correcte at is amysse, er{e} as y fawte or offende.

And if so at any be founde / as rou? myn necligence, Cast e cawse on my copy / rude / & bar{e} of eloquence, which{e} to d{ra}we out [I] haue do my besy diligence, redily to reforme hit / by reson and bettur sentence.

As for ryme or reson, e for{e}wryter was not to blame, For as he founde hit aforne hym, so wrote he e same, and augh{e} he or y in our{e} mater{e} digres or degrade, blame neithur of vs / For we neuyr{e} hit made;

Symple as y had insight / somwhat e ryme y correcte; blame y cowde no man / y haue no persone suspecte.

Now, good G.o.d, graunt vs grace / our{e} sowles neu{er} to Infecte!

an may we regne in i regiou{n} / et{er}nally w{i}t{h} thyne electe.

(l. 1235-50.)

If John Russell was the writer of the Epilogue quoted above, lines 1235-50, then it would seem that in this Treatise he only corrected and touched up some earlier Book of Norture which he had used in his youth, and which, if Sloane 2027 be not its original, may be still extant in its primal state in Mr Arthur Davenport's MS., "How to serve a Lord,"

_said_ to be of the fourteenth century[6], and now supposed to be stowed away in a hayloft with the owner's other books, awaiting the rebuilding and fitting of a fired house. I only hope this MS. may prove to be Russell's original, as Mr Davenport has most kindly promised to let me copy and print it for the Society. Meantime it is possible to consider John Russell's Book of Norture as his own. For early poets and writers of verse seem to have liked this fiction of attributing their books to other people, and it is seldom that you find them acknowledging that they have imagined their Poems on their own heads, as Hampole has it in his _p.r.i.c.ke of Conscience_, p. 239, l. 8874 (ed. Morris, Philol. Soc.).

Even Mr Tennyson makes believe that Everard Hall wrote his _Morte d'

Arthur_, and some Leonard his _Golden Year_. On the other hand, the existence of the two Sloane MSS. is more consistent with Russell's own statement (if it is his own, and not his adapter's in the Harleian MS.) that he did not write his Boke himself, but only touched up another man's. Desiring to let every reader judge for himself on this point, I shall try to print in a separate text[7], for convenience of comparison, the Sloane MS. 1315, which differs most from Russell, and which the Keeper of the MSS. at the British Museum considers rather earlier (ab. 1440-50 A.D.) than the MS. of Russell (ab. 1460-70 A.D.), while of the earliest of the three, Sloane MS. 2027 (ab. 1430-40 A.D.), the nearer to Russell in phraseology, I shall give a collation of all important variations. If any reader of the present text compares the Sloanes with it, he will find the subject matter of all three alike, except in these particulars:

Sloane 1315.

--Sloane 2027.

Omits lines 1-4 of Russell.

--Contains these lines.

Inserts after l. 48 of R. a pa.s.sage about behaviour which it nearly repeats, where Russell puts it, at l. 276, _Symple Condicions_.

--Inserts and omits as Sl. 1315 does, but the wording is often different.

Omits Russell's stanza, l. 305-8, about 'these cuttid galauntes with their codware.'

Omits a stanza, l. 319-24, p. 21.2, b.).

--Contains this stanza (fol. 42, b.).

Contracts R.'s chapter on Fumositees, p. 23-4.

--Contracts the Fumositees too (fol. 45 and back).

Omits R.'s _Lenvoy_, under Fried Metes, p. 33-4.

--Has one verse of _Lenvoy_ altered (fol. 45 b.).

Transfers R.'s chapters on _Sewes on Fische Dayes_ and _Sawcis for Fishe_, l. 819-54, p. 55-9, to the end of his chapter on _Kervyng of Fishe_, l. 649, p. 45.

--Transfers as Sl. 1315 does (see fol. 48).

Gives different Soteltes (or Devices at the end of each course), and omits Russell's description of his four of the Four Seasons, p. 51-4; and does not alter the metre of the lines describing the Dinners as he does, p. 50-5.

--Differs from R., nearly as Sl. 1315 does.

Winds up at the end of the _Bathe or Stewe_, l. 1000, p. 69, R., with two stanzas of peroration. As there is no _Explicit_, the MS.

may be incomplete, but the next page is blank.

--Has 3 winding-up stanzas, as if about to end as Sloane 1315 does, but yet goes on (omitting the _Bathe Medicinable_) with the _Vssher and Marshalle_, R. p. 69, and ends suddenly, at l. 1062, p. 72, R., in the middle of the chapter.

In occasional length of line, in words and rhymes, Sloane 1315 differs far more from Russell than Sloane 2027, which has Russell's long lines and rhymes throughout, so far as a hurried examination shows.

But the variations of both these Sloane MSS. are to me more like those from an original MS. of which our Harleian Russell is a copy, than of an original which Russell altered. Why should the earliest Sloane 2027 start with

"An vsschere .y. am / as ye may se : to a prynce Of hygh{e} degre"

if in its original the name of the prince was not stated at the end, as Russell states it, to show that he was not gammoning his readers? Why does Sloane 1315 omit lines in some of its stanzas, and words in some of its lines, that the Harleian Russell enables us to fill up? Why does it too make its writer refer to the pupil's lord and sovereign, if in its original the author did not clench his teaching by a.s.serting, as Russell does, that he had served one? This Sloane 1315 may well have been copied by a man like Wynkyn de Worde, who wished not to show the real writer of the treatise. On the whole, I incline to believe that John Russell's Book of Norture was written by him, and that either the Epilogue to it was a fiction of his, or was written by the superintender of the particular copy in the Harleian MS. 4011, Russell's own work terminating with the _Amen!_ after line 1234.

But whether we consider Russell's Boke another's, or as in the main his own,--allowing that in parts he may have used previous pieces on the subjects he treats of, as he has used _Stans Puer_ (or its original) in his _Symple Condicions_, l. 277-304,--if we ask what the Boke contains, the answer is, that it is a complete Manual for the Valet, Butler, Footman, Carver, Taster, Dinner-arranger, Hippocras-maker, Usher and Marshal of the n.o.bleman of the time when the work was written, the middle of the fifteenth century.--For I take the date of the composition of the work to be somewhat earlier than that of the MS. it is here printed from, and suppose Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, "imprisoned and murdered 1447," to have been still alive when his Marshal penned it.--Reading it, we see "The Good Duke" rise and dress[8], go to Chapel and meals, entertain at feasts in Hall, then undress and retire to rest; we hear how his head was combed with an ivory comb, his stomacher warmed, his petycote put on, his slippers brown as the waterleech got ready, his privy-seat prepared, and his urinal kept in waiting; how his bath was made, his table laid, his guests arranged, his viands carved, and his salt smoothed[9]; we are told how nearly all the birds that fly, the animals that walk the earth, the fish that swim in river and sea, are food for the pot: we hear of dishes strange to us[10], beaver's tail, osprey, brewe, venprides, whale, swordfish, seal, torrentyne, pety perveis or perneis, and gravell of beef[11]. Bills of fare for flesh and fish days are laid before us; admired Sotiltees or Devices are described; and he who cares to do so may fancy for himself the Duke and all his brilliant circle feasting in Hall, John Russell looking on, and taking care that all goes right.[12] I am not going to try my hand at the sketch, as I do not write for men in the depths of that deducated Philistinism which lately made a literary man say to one of our members on his printing a book of the 15th century, "Is it possible that you care how those barbarians, our ancestors, lived?" If any one who takes up this tract, will not read it through, the loss is his; those who do work at it will gladly acknowledge their gain. That it is worthy of the attention of all to whose ears tidings of Early England come with welcome sound across the wide water of four hundred years, I unhesitatingly a.s.sert. That it has interested me, let the time its notes have taken on this, a fresh subject to me, testify. If any should object to the extent of them[13], or to any words in them that may offend his ear, let him excuse them for the sake of what he thinks rightly present. There are still many subjects and words insufficiently ill.u.s.trated in the comments, and for the names _venprides_ (l. 820); _sprotis_, (? sprats, as in Sloane 1315), and _torrentille_ (l. 548); almond _iardyne_ (l. 744); ginger _colombyne_, _valadyne_, and _maydelyne_ (l. 132-3); leche _dugard_, &c., I have not been able to find meanings. Explanations and helps I shall gladly receive, in the hope that they may appear in another volume of like kind for which I trust soon to find more MSS. Of other MSS. of like kind I also ask for notice.

The reason for reprinting Wynkyn de Worde's _Boke of Keruynge_, which I had not at first thought of, was because its ident.i.ty of phrase and word with many parts of Russell,--a thing which came on me with a curious feeling of surprise as I turned over the leaves,--made it certain that de Worde either abstracted in prose Russell's MS., chopping off his lines' tails,--adding also bits here[14], leaving out others there,--or else that both writers copied a common original. The most cursory perusal will show this to be the case. It was not alone by happy chance that when Russell had said

O Fruture viant / Fruter sawge byn good / bett{ur} is Frut{ur} powche; Appulle fruture / is good hoot / but e cold ye not towche

(l. 501-2)

Wynkyn de Worde delivered himself of

"Fruyter vaunte, fruyter say be good; better is fruyter pouche; apple fruyters ben good good hote / and all colde fruters, touche not,"

altering _not's_ place to save the rhyme; or that when Russell had said of the Crane

The Crane is a fowle / that strong{e} is w{i}t{h} to far{e}; e whyng{es} ye areyse / full{e} large evyn thar{e}; of hyr{e} trompe in e brest / loke {a}t ye beware

Wynkyn de Worde directed his Carver thus: "A crane, reyse the wynges fyrst, & beware of the trumpe in his brest." Let any one compare the second and third pages of Wynkyn de Worde's text with lines 48-137 of Russell, and he will make up his mind that the old printer was either one of the most barefaced plagiarists that ever lived, or that the same original was before him and Russell too. May Mr Davenport's hayloft, or some learned antiquarian, soon decide the alternative for us! The question was too interesting a "Curiosity of Literature" not to be laid before our Members, and therefore _The Boke of Keruynge_ was reprinted--from the British Museum copy of the second edition of 1513--with added side-notes and stops, and the colophon as part of the t.i.tle.