Provenance and Acquisition

Preliminary note:

Much of the medieval and early modern provenance of MS Dd.4.24 remains uncertain. The manuscript contains numerous annotations and inscriptions, often of names - all, some or none of which may be connected with its ownership. Many of the connections between these names and specific individuals were first put forward by John Manly and Edith Rickert (1940), but the evidence is often tenuous and the connections speculative, and they remain the subject of some debate. See Seymour (1997), Mosser (2011) and Da Rold (2013) for further discussion.

Rather than reproduce what was proposed by Manly and Rickert, this description will instead list the locations and approximate dates of the names written into MS Dd.4.24, providing convenient links to these instances and the basis for future research.

8r: ' Hungerford ' (15th century). 'Hungerford' has not been identified. (A 'Margery Hungerford' signed her name in Cambridge, University Library, MS Ff.1.6, f. 14v , however the style of handwriting is different to that used here).

38r: ' Rychard Mervyn ' (16th century). Rychard/Richard Mervyn has not been identified.

146r: 'Thys ys Wyllyam Langstuns Boke' (16th century). William Langston/Langdon (16th century) has not been identified.

180r: 'Said william rokes' (16th/17th century). Another inscription on f. 120v might repeat the surname 'rokes'. William Rokes/Rookes (16th/17th century) has not been identified, though the same name may also be found in Cambridge, University Library, MS Add. 6864.

150r: 'Wyllyam pully ys my name and he' (16th/17th century). William Pully has not been identified. (A William Pulley was at Trinity College, Cambridge, 1584-91, vicar at various parishes in Kent 1596-1608 onwards. Will proven 1645. See: Venn:PLY584W.

'S W' (16th/17th century). Initials blind-tooled on the covers of an earlier, 16th/17th-century binding, preserved on the front and rear pastedowns of the 19th-century binding (which itself has been replaced and is retained with the manuscript). ' S. W. ' has not been identified. Seymour suggests that the initials could indicate the manuscript's ownership by Samuel Ward (d. 1605) of Ipswich, though on what basis is not made clear, and this connection remains speculative.

The date and circumstances of the manuscript's acquisition by Cambridge University Library remain unclear. It has not been identified among the manuscripts listed as belonging to John Moore (1646-1714), bishop of Ely in Bernard, Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum Angliæ et Hiberniæ (c. 1697) or the handwritten supplementary list of Moore's manuscripts (now Cambridge, University Library, MS Oo.7.50(2)) compiled by Thomas Tanner (1674-1735). However, it must have arrived by c. 1753, since it was recorded in the handwritten catalogue compiled at that time by Francis Sawyer Parris, Protobibliothecarius (now Cambridge, University Library, MS Oo.7.53-55). It is marked there as 'R', as were other books known or thought to have been among Moore's library. This collection was purchased en bloc and presented to the University Library in 1715 by George I , and known thereafter as the 'Royal Library' (hence, 'R').

If Moore did indeed own this manuscript, Manly and Rickert suggested that he may have obtained it from Samuel Hoadly/Hodley , of the grammar school at Hackney, who was noted as having in his possession a copy of 'Chaucer's Works' - though this description does not match the contents of this manuscript and the connection seems doubtful.