Medieval Manuscripts in Cambridge Libraries

A catalogue of Western manuscripts and papyri at Cambridge University Library, the Fitzwilliam Museum and selected Cambridge colleges

Cambridge, University Library, MS Dd.3.52

Guy de Chauliac, Chirurgia magna (in Middle English) and Summa conservationis et curationis (extract)

Contents

Introduction: Guy de Chauliac was born in the south of France, likely around the end of the 13th century, and his medical studies were centred around the university at Montpellier. According to his own account of his life, he studied there under Raymond de Moleriis, who became chancellor of the medical faculty in 1335. The university's curriculum of 1309 required six years of medical study, which period (and perhaps more) Guy presumably completed before becoming 'magister in medicina', probably at some point in the 1320s. Chauliac's time at Montpellier had been preceded and was followed by periods at Toulouse and Bologna respectively. By 1344, he was practising at Lyon, and shortly thereafter entered papal service. He survived the arrival of the plague later that decade, and in all attended three popes at Avignon – Clement IV, Innocent VI and Urban V – before his death in July 1368. It is as the author of the Inventarium, more commonly known as the Chirurgia magna, that Guy is now principally remembered. This text on surgery was deeply informed by his background and training as an academic physician and it therefore challenged the conventional distinction between the spheres of the physician and of the surgeon: the former founded on rational, 'scientific' knowledge and concerned with healing the body within, and the latter on practical, manual experience that dealt with external problems. 'A surgeon ignorant of anatomy operates like a blind man on wood...taking from [the body] more than he ought or less,' he wrote. 'Learned' surgical treatises had begun to emerge in the 13th century, adopting the scholarly conventions of books on physic in order to imbue surgery with similar respectability. In keeping with this development, Guy cited around fifty medical authorities: most frequently Galen, but notably also Arabic writers such as Avicenna, Albucasis, Razes and Haly Abbas, and western surgical writers such as Lanfranc of Milan and Roland of Parma, among numerous others. His education, but also his access to the library of the papal court at Avignon, was no doubt instrumental in affording him the knowledge and access to such a wide array of texts, and he acknowledged both his masters at Montpellier, Bologna and Paris, and his colleagues at Avignon, in nourishing him through conversation, reading and working. Guy's breadth of reading is shown off in the prefatory 'capitulum singulaire', a history of the surgical discipline that mimicked similar accounts in the works of Haly Abbas and Razes, and which also gave him the opportunity to evaluate the quality of some of his predecessors' writings. In providing details of his own biography in the capitulum, Guy also positioned himself as the descendant and inheritor of these illustrious medical authors. Appropriately for such a learned treatise, the Chirurgia was written in Latin, and appears rapidly to have found a ready readership: at least 34 manuscript copies survive, including one ( Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Pal. Lat. 1317 ) whose colophon records that it was completed in Montpellier in 1373, only five years after its author's death. The Latin text was first printed in 1490 and thereafter went through numerous editions. While still circulating in manuscript, however, the text was translated into several vernacular languages, including French, Italian, Hebrew, Dutch, Provençal and – as illustrated by this manuscript – Middle English. The history of the Middle English Chirurgia has been confused partly by differing opinions on how many different versions exist, by the uneven survival (as well as disappearance and rediscovery) of manuscript witnesses, and by the piecemeal appearance of scholarly editions. It is now generally agreed, however, that we know of three Middle English translations: Only the first of these survives in complete form in more than one copy, and it is this recension – without, however, its version of the capitulum singulaire – that is preserved in MS Dd.3.52 (but see below for further discussion). Also contained in the manuscript is an extract from Guy's Summa conservationis et curationis, which was first identified in 2022 by Clarck Drieshen in the preparation of a new catalogue record as part of the Curious Cures in Cambridge Libraries project. The leaves at the beginning and end of the manuscript also contain a number of curative recipes, instructions for the preparation of an 'aqua mirabilia' ('miraculous water'), and ritual charms for stopping bleeding, all added by several late medieval hands. The focus of scholarship on the Middle English tradition has so far been the text of the Chirurgia: its editors have dealt only briefly with the manuscripts, their other textual contents, material characteristics and histories, and a comprehensive list of surviving manuscripts remains a desideratum. A systematic study of the manuscript witnesses could help to clear up not only any remaining ambiguity regarding which textual traditions are preserved, and where and in what form, but could also extend our understanding of the provenance and readership of the Middle English text: whether known through ownership inscriptions, or inferred from an examination of the different ways in which the text was presented on the page, associated contents in the manuscripts, or annotations and other signs of use. Such analysis could provide valuable contextual information for manuscripts - like MS Dd.3.52 - that lack any evidence of medieval provenance. Close examination of the material characteristics of a manuscript can often reveal the processes by which a book was brought into being. However – as in the case of MS Dd.3.52 – this evidence is not always unambiguous and can resist the construction of a simple, linear narrative. The production of the main part of the manuscript has been dated variously to the 'latter part of the 15th century' (Wallner (1970), p. XII) or the late 15th century (Connolly (2009), p. 7). At least two hands were involved: the first writing the rubrics and text of Book One in a semi-formal style of Secretary, with some letter forms from Anglicana (ff. 11r-28r), and one or perhaps more hands writing most of the rest of the text in a slightly more cursive style where the letter forms are more mixed (ff. 29r-249v) (see further discussion below, however). There is further evidence to point to separate production. Book One is self-contained on Quires 2 and 3, which are formed of eight and ten leaves respectively. The text ends after only half a page on the last leaf, f. 28, and one might surmise that an extra bifolium was added before copying began, in order to ensure that all of the text of Book One could be accommodated. The lower half of this leaf has water damage that is not found on the next adjacent leaf, f. 29, indicating that they were not together when this occurred. The preparation is also different: parchment alone was used for Quires 2 and 3, whereas those that follow were made of paper with parchment for the outer and inner bifolia only. There are some commonalities in the presentation of the text: it is in a single column on pages ruled with frame and lines, supplied with plain coloured initials, and with chapter headings and marginal content markers written in red ink. It may be that the scribe or scribes of one section sought to imitate the work of the other(s), seeking a consistent appearance across the volume, or that these were standard conventions in copies of this text that scribes followed from their exemplars. Differences remain, though: the initials were only partially completed in Quires 2 and 3, but were finished more consistently thereafter, and it is only from Quire 4 onwards that one finds frequent use of paraph marks (alternating in red and blue in the text, and in blue only against the marginal content markers). Within the larger of these two sections (ff. 29r-249v) there are further complexities. Quire 14 (ff. 110-117) is made solely of parchment. The leaves and the space occupied by the text are both smaller, and a different hand picks up the text at the very start of the quire, writing in an accomplished Secretary script. This hand, however, copied only the first six pages, and a hand more akin to the one that preceded the quire resumed copying on the first line of f. 113r. The text runs across the quire divisions and scribal stints without interruption, as it does in Quire 25 (ff. 200-215), where a further peculiarity occurs. The text stops at the end of the fifth line on f. 199v, leaving the rest of the page blank. A different hand, writing in Secretary script, resumes on f. 200r, continuing until the end of f. 204v and the first seven lines of f. 213r. Between these two leaves, a quire of eight leaves has been inserted, and signes-de-renvoi direct the reader back and forth so they may follow the text. None of the details regarding quire preparation or scribal hand, however, enable us to establish conclusively whether the production of the second, larger portion preceded the production of the first, or vice versa, or whether the production of both proceeded more or less contemporaneously, with differences in their making being merely incidental. The picture is muddied further by Quire 1. These leaves supply an incomplete copy of Guy's capitulum singulaire, not from the Chauliac (1) tradition, but from Chauliac (3). In spite of the vagaries of production in the rest of the manuscript, it seems unlikely that the makers of MS Dd.3.52 were working from an exemplar that blended these different translations, especially since the production of the capitulum is so markedly different: written by another scribe, in a fully cursive Secretary script of roughly the same period, on pages with frame ruling only and lacking any initials, rubrics or paraph marks. The temptation is to conclude that a medieval owner / reader, equipped with a copy of Guy's treatise but knowing it not to be complete, sought out or had made a copy of the capitulum singulaire and bound it with the rest. However, the material evidence suggests a more complex story. Paper from the same stock was used to make ff. 3-8 as ff. 29-254 (Books Two to Seven), and also ff. 256-265 at the very end of the manuscript, with each quire featuring parchment for the outer and inner bifolia. This suggests that all were added to the manuscript as part of the same campaign, rather than those bearing the capitulum singulaire coming later. The quire at the front and the quire at the back may have been left blank, in anticipation of further additions at a later date. Perhaps an exemplar of the capitulum was not readily to hand, and these leaves ultimately provided space for it. It was presumably started on f. 3r because the present f. 1 was formerly the pastedown, and f. 2 was either left blank as a protective endleaf or already had some additions that were in the way of a clean start. However, the text of the capitulum is not complete, but ends abruptly on f. 8v with the words, 'þat is mad entier by reson and professe-'. Comparison with two other surviving copies of this recension confirm that this is roughly halfway through the capitulum (see Cambridge, Jesus College, MS Q.G.23 , f. 8v, col. 1, l. 18, and Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 336/725 , f. 7v, l. 17). One might conclude that a quire of eight leaves has therefore been lost from the manuscript at this juncture, were it not for the same pattern of wormholes being visible across the opening of ff. 8v and 11r (the pencil note on the losses on f. 8v of MS Dd.3.52 should be disregarded – see Additions for further elaboration). These leaves must therefore have been immediately adjacent to one another for a sustained period of time, presumably between wooden boards (whose use in bindings became less common after the end of the medieval period), as part of a binding that became badly deteriorated before its replacement (extensive worming may also be seen in the leaves at the back of the manuscript). We can only speculate as to possible explanations: perhaps the second half of the capitulum singulaire became separated from the manuscript at an early date and before it was (re-)bound; or the copyist ran out of room on leaves that were already bound into the manuscript and wrote the remainder on other, loose leaves that were never incorporated and eventually became separated. Nevertheless, it illustrates a sustained attempt on the part of the owner or owners of this manuscript to compile, evidently from different sources, as complete a copy of Guy's surgical work as possible, and thus indicates the appeal and value of the Middle English translation of the text to readers a century or more after Guy's death. Dr James Freeman|Medieval Manuscripts Specialist|Cambridge University Library Bibliography
  • Guigonis de Caulhiaco (Guy de Chauliac), Inventarium sive Chirurgia magna. Volume One: Text, ed. by Michael R. McVaugh, Studies in Ancient Medicine, 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1997)
  • Michael R. McVaugh, The Rational Surgery of the Middle Ages (Firenze: SISMEL/Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2006)

Physical Description

Secundo Folio: 4r of the bones
Form: codex
Support: Parchment and paper.
Extent: Codex: 8 | 18 ; 81 ; 8 ; 147 + i leaves. 290 × 215 mm.
Foliation:

Mid-20th-century foliation:

[i] + 1-8, 11-254, 256-265 + [ii]

Numbering in pencil in the upper right-hand corner of the rectos, by H.L. Pink . Folio numbers 9, 10, and 255 assigned to leaves no longer present in the volume (as per historic foliation practice at Cambridge University Library). See Additions for further discussion.
Foliation:

16th or 17th-century foliation:

1-20, [gap], 21-82, 82-258 (for ff. 2-264)

Numbering in brown ink in the upper right-hand corner of the rectos. A leaf between 20 and 21 was omitted from the sequence and 82 has been used twice. This old foliation has been crossed out and replaced with 20th-century foliation (see above).

Collation

The manuscript comprises two Parts: Part 1 = Quire 1; Part 2 = Quires 2-30, but with apparent codicological units (Quire 14 and part of Quire 25). Mainly quires of 8 or 10 leaves. See Additions for discussion of previous interpretations of the manuscript's collation. Quire 25 is a quire of 8 leaves, inside which a further quire of 8 leaves has been inserted after the 5th leaf, f. 204. The text runs out of order in this part, as follows: ff. 205v, 213r (first seven lines), 205r-212v, 213r (after first seven lines).

  • Quire 18 (ff. 1-8) |
  • Quire 28 (ff. 11-18)
  • Quire 310 (ff. 19-28) ;
  • Quires 4-128 (ff. 29-100)
  • Quire 138+1 (ff. 101-109: 9th leaf inserted) ;
  • Quire 148 (ff. 110-117) ;
  • Quire 15-238 (ff. 118-189)
  • Quire 2410 (ff. 190-199)
  • Quire 258+8 (ff. 200-215: quire of 8 leaves inserted after the 5th leaf, f. 204)
  • Quire 26-2810 (ff. 216-245)
  • Quire 2910-1 (ff. 246-254: 10th leaf is missing)
  • Quire 3010 (ff. 256-265)

18 | 28 310 ; 4-128 138+1 (9th inserted) ; 148; 15-238 2410 258+8 (6th-13th inserted) 26-2810 2910-1 (10th missing) 3010

Condition

Wormholes are visible on the manuscript's opening and closing pages; there is staining throughout the manuscript (e.g. ff. 82r, 167r, 167v, 198v); and minor damage, perhaps caused by a rodent, in the lower margins of ff. 118-150. A small parchment strip has been pasted over a hole in the upper margin of f. 122r; and another to the outer margin of f. 182r for making a textual correction.

Additions

'At least Two leaves gone (9 and 10)': note in pencil in the upper right-hand corner of f. 8v. The medial capital letter suggests that the note was written in stages, with the interpretation of the manuscript's collation changing. The note was perhaps written by Charles Sayle (1864-1924) , the numbers underneath being added later by H.L. Pink . Comparison with other copies of the capitulum singulaire confirm that approximately half the text is missing from this copy, so it is more likely that an entire quire, probably also of eight leaves is missing. That the remaining quire (now Quire 1) cannot have been a quire of ten leaves, as Pink's addition suggests, is proven by its formation: parchment bifolia for the two outer and two inner leaves, the first of the former serving originally as the pastedown and now lifted as f. 1. This appears to have been the conclusion of whoever added letters (c-z, A-H) in the lower margin to denote the start of a quire: if the present Quire 2 is 'c', then this 19th-/20th-century annotator presumably thought Quire 1 must be 'a' and the lost leaves between them 'b'. Unfortunately, Pink's erroneous interpretation of the structure of the manuscript's leaves has been codified by the subsequent foliation by Pink, with the numbering jumping from '8' to '11'. A further note, again probably by Sayle, is on f. 199v: 'No break here. Text reads on.'

Quire signatures ('1-29' for what are now Quires 2-30) in the bottom right-hand corner of the recto side of the first leaf of each quire, written in pencil by a hand of the 19th/20th century. Further signatures ('c-H') added, with '+' in the same position on the first leaf after the centre of the quire, written in pencil by H.L. Pink .

Binding

Quarter goatskin with marbled paper sides and vellum tips with the title ‘Guido de Cauliaco’ and classmark ‘Dd.3.52’ goldstamped on the spine, made by J.P. Gray and son of Cambridge in 1959 (according to a stamp and note on the front pastedown.

Binding height: 300 mm ; width: 215 mm ; depth: 70 mm.

History

Provenance and Acquisition

John Mawkester (fl. 16th century) : his name inscribed on f. 250r: 'By me John Maw[?n]kester'.

John Williamson (fl. 16th century) : his name inscribed on f. 265r: 'me Jhon Wylliamson' (perhaps referring to the crossing out of a recipe); perhaps also added a note to f. 262r: 'This is the day which the Lorde hath made'.

Michael Hare (fl. 1560) : his ownership inscription on f. 1v: ‘Jesu Christ saue ye soule of Mich. Hare the owner of this Booke 1560’.

John Dwyre (fl. 1700) : his ownership inscription on f. 1v: ‘John Dwyne his Book 1700’.

Perhaps John Moore (1646-1714) , bishop of Ely: attributed to Moore by Binski and Zutshi, but not recorded or identified in Bernard, Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum Angliæ et Hiberniæ (c. 1697), or Thomas Tanner's supplementary handlist (MS Oo.7.50(2)).

Perhaps presented to the University Library in 1715 by George I : donation bookplate engraved by John Pine in 1736 on the inside left cover (but in some instances these bookplates were mistakenly added to books at the University Library that had not been part of Moore's library: see David McKitterick, Cambridge University Library: A History .

Part 1: Prologue to the Chirurgia Magna [Cambridge, University Library, MS Dd.3.52, ff. 1r-8v]

Contents

Language(s): Middle English and Latin

1. 2r
Medical recipe
Language(s): Middle English recipe with Latin terminology
Rubric: 2r vnguentum Esell
Incipit: 2r Take gum lymei [ounces] iij oyle of lentyske oyle þe baye auar [ounces] i and ser ffyne rosyn Colosome auar [ounces] iiij mummia [ounces] ij
Explicit: 2r and mak all þis in powder be hem selfe and put þe oyles in an erthe pote and when þay be molt put in þe gume oliuey lityll and lytell

Added in the late 15th or early 16th century. For an unspecified purpose.

2. 2r
Medical recipe
Language(s): Latin
Incipit: 2r lignum cipresi [sic] lignum aloe
Explicit: 2r Sale ammoniac

Added in the 16th century. For an unspecified purpose.

3. 3r-8v
Prologue to the Chirurgia Magna Guy de Chauliac [Guido de Cauliaco]
Language(s): Middle English translation with Latin quotations
Incipit: 3r [A]ffter þat yȝolden I haue first y thankyng to almyȝti god the yeuer bothe euere lastyng lyff of soules and helthe of bodyes
Explicit: 8v it is worthy thyng and holy to worschippe treuthe a fore all oþere thynges lete sewe þe formall techynges of .G. in lio sectarum and ouer all [?] creapentur þat is mad enciere by reson and proffe||

Added in the late 15th century.

eVK2 2627.00 (v0057800000)
eVK2 3638.00 (v0057810000)
eVK2 7644.00 (v0057820000)

Physical Description

Secundo Folio: 4r of the bones
Form: codex
Support: Paper, with inner and outer parchment bifolia, folded in folio: Bull's head with star.
Extent: Codex: 8 leaves. 290 × 215 mm.

Collation

  • Quire 18 (ff. 1-8) |

Catchword on f. 8v.

Layout

190-240 × 110-160 mm. Ruled in leadpoint, frame only. Single columns. 33-37 lines to the page, written above top line.

Hand(s)

Folios 3r-8v written by a single scribe in Secretary script.

Decoration

Gaps left for a four-line and a three-line initial on ff. 3r and 3v respectively.

History

Origin: Second half of the 15th century. ; England.

Part 2: Chirurgia Magna [Cambridge, University Library, MS Dd.3.52, ff. 11r-265v]

Contents

1. 11r-249v
Chirurgia Magna (Middle English translation) Guy de Chauliac
Language(s): Middle English translation with Latin terminology
Rubric: 11r Here bygynneth þe first boke of Guydo de Caulhiaco
Incipit: 11r þe first tretys ys of anathomye contenyng .2. doctrinez
Explicit: 249v Wiche he wouchesafe for to graunte me and to all þe of þe selfe blissed god þat lyveþ and regneþ in worldez of worldez Amen
Final rubric: 249v Here endeþe þe Antidotarie þat is [7] and þe laste boke of Guydo de Caulhiaco / Here endeþ þe Inuentorye of Guydo de Caulhiaco doctour of Phesyk and cirurgien in þe vnyuersite of Mount Pessulane .id est. of Mountpelerez
eVK2 7644.00
For other copies, see Connolly (2009), p. 6.
2. 250r
Summa conservationis et curationis (extract: Chapter 175) Guy de Chauliac
Language(s): Latin
Rubric: 250r Capitulum .clxxv de his que prohibent inpregnacionem et aborsum faciunt
Incipit: 250r Quamuis istud capitulum non sit de mandato legis
Explicit: 250r et omnia illa singulariter per se in hoc iuuant

Previously unidentified.

3. 250r-250r
Medical recipe for the plague
Language(s): Latin
Rubric: 250r Pro pestilencia

Copied by the same hand that copied the tract above.

4. 250v-250v
Two magical cures for staunching blood
Language(s): Latin
Rubric: 250v Ad Sanguinem restringendum
Incipit: 250v De naso uel plaga fluentem si carecteras subsequentes scribantur et suspendantur circa collum uel brachium alicuius sanguinentus de naso uel de plaga cito restringetur sanguis
Explicit: 250v quo vero desiccato restringetur sanuis ubicumque fuerit sine de naribus sine de plagis

The text describes two methods for staunching blood: the first one involves a magical amulet with characters whose magical properties can be tested by writing them on the handle of a knife and cutting a pig or piglet with it; the second one (probably designed for healing nosebleeds) involves a hazel rod that has to be cut open in the middle so that the patient's head can go through it. Subsequently, a charm should be read over the patient's head and the rod anointed with their blood. Finally, the rod should be pulled over their head and worn by them like a crown until their blood on the rod has dried up. The latter method is accompanied by a marginal illustration (described in the Decoration section below) to which the text explicitly refers: ‘accipe virgam coruli etatis vnius anni et findatur cum cultello per modum ita quod vtrumque caput virge sanum permaneat ad modum sicut hic depingitur’.

The second magical method for staunching blood may have been derived from an illustrated copy of John Arderne's Liber receptorum medicinalium which contains the very same charm. For example, see the charms and drawings in Cambridge, Emmanuel College, MS 69 (f. 4r) and Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.2.49 (f. 1v).

5. 250v-250v
Medical water
Language(s): Latin
Rubric: 250v Aqua mirabilia sic fit per quam mirabilia fuit
Incipit: 250v Recipium lunaturam argenti eris et ferri plumbi
Explicit: 250v maculam destruit oculorum pulcros oculos se omnes reddit

The concluding part of the recipe mentions leprosy, conserving youth, removing a blemish from and ?beautifying the eyes.

6. 254v
Medical recipes
Language(s): Latin and Middle English
Incipit: 254v Recipe þe cietica passio
Explicit: 254v and make þerof a letuare dosis [ounces] ij cum multa

Not in Connolly (2009). For sciatica.

7. 256r
Maxim
Language(s): Latin
Incipit: 256r Dum sumus in mundo vivamus [...] corde jocundo

Full transcription.

8. 262r
Lunar calendar
Language(s): Middle English
Incipit: 263 For to knowe motus diei of þe moune and þe very meuyng in euery hour of the day and of þe nyȝtte firste looke how many grees þe moune remeueth in a day and be þe allmynake þen tak þees greese in þe hede of þe table þat her folewth and þe next nombre vnderneth is þe meuyng of a hour and so eny hour after oþer item take þe forseyde meuyng in a day be þe allmynake and tak þat in þe hede of þe tables þat here foloweth þen loke in þe allmynake howe many greese þer remayneth of þat sygne and þer þat remaynethe of þat sygne take it and loke yt derectly vnder þe hede of þe greese þat he remeneth in a day þen looke þyn hours in þe rede lyne and þus in þe mettyng take þe cumyng in of þe next sygne in þat hour

This is the introduction to a table, headed: ‘Ad sciendum locum lune omni hora diei et noctis’.

9. 263r-263v
Medical recipe
Language(s): Latin
Incipit: 263r Recipe gummi elempni [ounces] vj.
Explicit: 26v Ponatus illa gumma in balsamo predicto et statim in balneo pariter soluentus et fiet unum leum purissimum et preciosissimum quod non valet aliquo inundacio predicto estimari quia preualet corona regia lapidibus insignita Sanat miraculose omnem infirmitatem et preseruat ab omni infeccione et egritudinem usque ad periodum a deo constitutum cui sit honor et gloria per inifiata secula Amen

A miraculous cures for all infirmities, to protect against infection and illnesses. Added by a 15th-century hand.

10. 264r
Medical recipes
Language(s): Middle English
Incipit: 264r Recipe heues and synde hym tyll þat þay may be fhallde
Explicit: 264r þys byn medecines for all manyr of ullserres and cancre

Five recipes in English, headed by the date 1461. The first is for ?headache, the fourth for ?cleansing a wound ('...laye upon tyll þou se þat mater be clene...'), the fifth for bleeding. The third is a desiccative of some kind ('...lay yt above þe medell tyll þou se þat yt be drey op'), but the purpose is not clear.

11. 264v
Medical recipes
Language(s): Latin
Incipit: 264v Item capill. venis pupuris
Explicit: 264v aceti boni modicum

Four recipes in Latin. Their purposes are unstated. The third involves making a plaster ('...fiat emplastrum').

12. 264v
Medical recipe
Language(s): Middle English and Latin
Incipit: || 264v ij handful of sorrell j handfull sangereall j handfull of dandeleon j handfull of fevrefu j hanfull of tyme j handfull of camamylle bo

Full transcription. Added in the late 15th or early 16th century. For an unspecified purpose.

13. 265r
Medical recipe
Language(s): Latin
Incipit: 265r Recipe lapis calaminaris [ounces] ij
Explicit: 265r lapis sanguiniae [ounces] iij

Added in the late 15th or early 16th. For an unspecified purpose.

14. 265r
Medical recipe
Language(s): Middle English
Incipit: 265r Inter for to make here to growe: take þe husske of schestennes and brend hin and make assches þer of þan of þe assches make ley þus þan wiche þe hed þan take of drey assches and put of on.

Full transcription. To make hair grow. Added in the late 15th or early 16th century.

15. 265r
Medical recipe
Language(s): Middle English and Latin
Incipit: 265r a medicyne for the bon ache. Recipe olij rute camamyle odere olij laure et croci an. [ounces] 4 sil misce cum felle bonis vnge

Full transcription. For gout ('bone ache'). Added in the late 15th or early 16th century.

16. 265r
Two medical recipes
Language(s): Latin
Incipit: 265r de Radicis [pounds] ij . de melle [pounds] 3 . de vino rubeo optimo
Incipit: 265r de antimonio [ounces] ii de tartaro [ounces] v . de aqua vite [ounces] iiij

Added in the late 15th or early 16th.

17. 265r
Medical note
Language(s): Middle English
Incipit: 265r Myd þat haue made myn reken with blairbol in [...]

Unfinished note added in the late 15th or early 16th century; not transcribed in Connolly (2009).

Physical Description

Secundo Folio: 12r telle þo þingez
Form: codex
Support: Parchment and paper: quires 2-3 and 14 consist of parchment (FHHF); quires 4-13, and 15-30 consist of paper, with inner and outer parchment bifolia, folded in folio. Bull's head with star. Lamb with flag.
Extent: Codex: 18 ; 81 ; 8 ; 147 + i leaves. 280-290 × 195-215 mm.

Collation

  • Quire 28 (ff. 11-18)
  • Quire 310 (ff. 19-28) ;
  • Quires 4-128 (ff. 29-100)
  • Quire 138+1 (ff. 101-109: 9th leaf inserted) ;
  • Quire 148 (ff. 110-117) ;
  • Quire 15-238 (ff. 118-189)
  • Quire 2410 (ff. 190-199)
  • Quire 258+8 (ff. 200-215: quire of 8 leaves inserted after the 5th leaf, f. 204)
  • Quire 26-2810 (ff. 216-245)
  • Quire 2910-1 (ff. 246-254: 10th leaf is missing)
  • Quire 3010 (ff. 256-265)

Leaf signatures in quires 2-3 only.

 Catchwords in the right corners of the lower margins of the last versos of quires, sometimes in decorative banderols in red ink.

Layout

190-240 × 110-160 mm. Ruled in leadpoint, both frame only and frame and line ruling. Single columns. 35-50 lines to the page, written above top line.

Hand(s)

Folios 11r-28r copied by a scribe writing a semi-formal version of Secretary, with some Anglicana letter forms.

Folios 29r-249v copied by one or more scribes writing in a slightly more cursive Secretary script than the hand responsible for ff. 11r-28r, with greater mixing of letter forms from Anglicana.

Folios 110r-113v copied by a scribe writing in Secretary script.

200r-204v and the first seven lines of f. 213r copied by a scribe writing in Secretary script.

Some texts have been added by various other hands mainly writing in Secretary script.

Decoration

Drawing of a medical instrument (needle) in brown ink within the text on f. 136v and of a hazel rod with an opening in the middle (through which the head of a patient suffering from nosebleeds should be placed) in brown and red ink in the inner margin of f. 250v.

Large (5-line) blue initial ‘F’ historiated with a pointing figure in cap, gown, and hood (perhaps a scholar or physician, or the author) outlined in black on on f. 11r.

Large (4- to 5-line), medium (2- to 3-line) and small (1-line) initials coloured in blue, red, or in red outlined in blue (ff. 98v, 137v, 143r, 144v, 146v, 147v, 148v, 164r, 242v) ink; some medium-sized blue initials have been highlighted in red (ff. 107v, 132v), while others feature a blue 3-leaf clover inside the letter (f. 108v) and the rubricated prayer-exhortation 'ihesus mercy' inside the letter (f. 186r).

Line-fillers typically in consisting of diagonal lines in blue ink, ocassionally also in red ink (f. 249v); the line-fillers on ff. 242v-245v consist of diagonal and horizontal lines alternating between blue and red ink.

Headers in margins and within the text in red ink, occasionally in blue ink (e.g. ff. 83v, 137v, 242r).

Paraphs in blue or red ink.

Underlining in red ink, occasionally in blue ink (e.g. f. 49v).

Unfinished drawing of a man's torso, head, and right arm added to the outer margin of f. 118v in brown ink.

Manicules in brown ink have been occasionally added to the margins (e.g. ff. 121r, 122r.

History

Origin: Second half of the 15th century. ; England.

Additional Information

Record Sources

This catalogue entry draws on the descriptions provided by Margaret Connolly, Manuscripts in the University Library, Cambridge (Dd-Oo), The Index of Middle English Prose (Woodbridge: Brewer, 2009), pp. 5-7; Paul Binski and Patrick Zutshi, with the collaboration of Stella Panayotova, Western Illuminated Manuscripts: A Catalogue of the Collection in Cambridge University Library (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), no. 258 (used here by kind permission of Cambridge University Press); and unpublished descriptions of the manuscript composed by C.E. Sayle , now held in the University Archives (UA ULIB 7/3/72); and, composed between 1926 and 1930, by M.R. James , now held in the University Archives (UA ULIB 7/3/74).

Availability

Entry to read in the Library is permitted only on presentation of a valid reader's card. For information on eligibility and admissions procedures, see Joining the Library). For further enquiries, and to confirm the availability of the manuscript, please contact the Special Collections Reading Room.

Bibliography

    The Middle English Translation of Guy de Chauliac's Anatomy; with Guy's essay on the History of Medicine Lunds Universitets årsskrift. N.F. Avd. 1., (Lund, Gleerup, 1964) Medical Manuscripts in Middle English Speculum, Robbins, Rossell Hope (45, 3, 393-415, 1970, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2853500) A Middle English version of the introduction to Guy de Ghauliac's <hi rend="italics">Chirurgia magna</hi> Acta Universitatis Lundensis, Sectio 1: Theologica juridica humaniora, (Lund, Gleerup, 1970) On the .i. Periphrasis in the N.Y. Chauliac Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, Wallner, Björn (88, 3, 286-294, 1987) A Description of Jesus College MS Q.G.23 Containing Guy De Chauliac's Chirurgie: A Supplement to M.R. James's Catalogue Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, Lucas, Angela M.Lucas, Peter J. (12, 2, 132-44, 2001) Practical Reading for Body and Soul in Some Later Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies Journal of the Early Book Society, Connolly, Margaret (10, 151-174, 2007) Manuscripts in the University Library, Cambridge (Dd-Oo) Index of Middle English prose, Connolly, Margaret (Woodbridge, D.S. Brewer, 2009) “Gadryng Togedre of Medecyne in the Partye of Cyrugie”: Strategies of Code-Switching in the Middle English Translations of Chauliac’s Chirurgia Magna Code-Switching in Early English Topics in English Linguistics, Meecham-Jones, Simon (Berlin, 253-280, De Gruyter Mouton, 2012)

Funding of Cataloguing

Wellcome

Digital Images

Cambridge Digital Library

Abbreviations

View list of abbreviations and editorial conventions.

Study at Cambridge

About the University

Research at Cambridge