6 NOTES AND QUERIES doi:10.1093/notesj/gjz188 ß The Author(s) (2020). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com Advance Access publication 9 January, 2020 17 See, for example, J. M. Clark, The Abbey of St. Gall as a Centre of Literature & Art (Cambridge, 1926), 55–70; Sven Meeder, The Irish Scholarly Presence at St. Gall (London, 2018), 61–2. 18 St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 732, 176. 19 Sincere gratitude is owed to Dr Thijs Porck (Leiden University) for his assorted advice and assistance. FURTHER MANUSCRIPTS OF MATTHEW PARIS’ FLORES HISTORIARUM AND CONTINUATIONS Matthew Paris’ Flores historiarum and its continuations are important sources for high to late medieval England. The main text covers, in its fullest form, Creation–1265, and is sometimes misattributed to Matthew of Westminster. Its ‘Westminster’ and ‘Merton’ continuations cover 1265–1306.1 Other texts were also appended to the end of the Flores historiarum and its standard continuations, most commonly Adam Murimuth’s Continuatio chronicarum.2 It also has other continuations found in only a few manuscripts. Luard, in his Rolls Series edition of Matthew Paris’ text, identified twenty manuscripts. Due to the popularity of this text, it should come as no surprise that additional copies of the text have turned up. I list here six further manuscripts with basic information on their texts when available. These are identified in their manuscript catalogues, with the exception of MS 2, which has been misidentified as containing Nicholas Trevet’s chronicle due to trusting a postmedieval note in the manuscript. None of these catalogues seem to have been aware of the other additional manuscripts. Further manuscripts 1. London, British Library, MS Cotton Cleopatra A XVI, fols 69r–85r (‘Westminster’ continuation for 1298–1306, s. XV)3 2. London, British Library, MS Cotton Nero D X, fols 105r–113r (peculiar expanded unidentified continuation for 1287–1323, s. XIVmed.)4 1 Matthew Paris, Flores historiarum, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series, 95, 3 vols (London, 1890), I–II (main text), III, 1–137 (‘Westminster’ continuation), III, 239–327 (‘Merton’ continuation). See also Richard Vaughan, Matthew Paris (Cambridge, 1958); Antonia Gransden, ‘The Continuations of the Flores historiarum, from 1265 to 1327’, Mediaeval Studies xxxvi (1974), 472–92. 2 For more information on the texts in Further MSS 1, 2, 3, and 5 and Luard’s MSS 4, 6, 11, and 12, see Trevor Russell Smith, ‘A Handlist of Manuscripts Containing Adam Murimuth’s Continuatio chronicarum’, Scriptorium (2020, forthcoming), here MSS 3, 14, 16, and 21 and 9, 15, 22, and 1. 3 British Museum, A Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library Deposited in the British Museum (London, 1802), 577; John of Reading, ‘Chronicon’, in James Tait (ed.), Johannis de Reading et Anonymi Cantuariensis, 1346– 1367 (Manchester, 1914), 99–186, 229–355 (here 17–24). 4 British Museum, Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library, 239. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/nq/article-abstract/67/1/6/5695645 by guest on 21 May 2020 apparent Anglo-Saxon attributes of the hand in which the charm was penned should not be disregarded.17 In fact, these properties lend support to the notion that the inscription was added by an Anglo-Saxon or associate scribe with access to an early, insular version of the charm—previously committed to memory or writing. On the other hand, its recurrent appearance in manuscripts from St. Gall and its immediate monastic network may suggest the remedy to be local or regional in origin. In this scenario, the formula may have been encountered and exported by an English scribe, only to later be included in the Lácnunga manuscript—bundled with various other veterinary charms. Lacking a statement of practical utility (as present in the other manuscripts), the St. Gall inscription seems to have been included for personal use only—either in idleness, as a mnemonic device, or as a means of scribal practice or pen-trial. This assumption is affirmed by the formula’s position on an empty section of vellum in an otherwise unrelated manuscript, as well as its presence near other anomalous scribbles, including part of the Lord’s Prayer written backwards on the preceding page (in yet another hand).18 Despite the noted resemblance between the opening words of the remedy from Cod. Sang. 732 and the other manuscripts, their subsequent divergence complicates a clear-cut corroboration of the textual (or scribal) affinities between them. Nevertheless, their collective survival serves to substantiate a distinct oral tradition of phonetically recollected remedies—both at St. Gall and across its monastic network—which seems to have endured over the course of several centuries.19 CHRISTIAN COOIJMANS University of Liverpool March 2020 NOTES AND QUERIES March 2020 I list Luard’s twenty manuscripts here, with full and updated shelf mark information, for the convenience of the reader. Luard did not give complete shelf marks, or did not include any at all, for MSS 1, 2, 10, 17, and 20, while MS 12 has since moved to its current institution. One should still turn to Luard’s list for more detailed information on these texts, for which his manuscript numbers are included in brackets afterwards. Luard’s manuscripts 1. Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R IV 2 (635) [I.7] 2. Eton, College Library, MS 123 [II.1] 3. London, British Library, MS Arundel 96 [I.2] 4. London, British Library, MS Cotton Claudius E VIII [I.10] 5. London, British Library, MS Cotton Nero D II [I.11] 6. London, British Library, MS Cotton Otho C II [I.8] 5 Montague Rhodes James and Claude Jenkins, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Lambeth Palace (Cambridge, 1930–2), 292–5. 6 Richard W. Hunt and others, A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, 7 vols (Oxford, 1895–1953), V, 805–6. 7 Bodleian Library Staff (probably A. C. de la Mare), ‘MS Lat. Hist. D 4’ (typeset manuscript description in the Accessions Catalogue, Bodleian Library, c. 1973–4); Antonia Gransden, Historical Writing in England, 2 vols (London, 1974–82), I, 522–3. 8 Eric George Millar, The Library of A. Chester Beatty: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Western Manuscripts, 2 vols (London, 1927–30), II, 127–9. 7. London, British Library, MS Harley 641 [II.5] 8. London, British Library, MS Royal 14 C VI [I.9] 9. London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 1106 [I.12] 10. London, Westminster Abbey, MS 24 [I.6] 11. Manchester, Chetham’s Library, MS 6712 [I.1] 12. New Haven, Yale University Beinecke Library, MS 426 (olim Phillipps MS 15732) [II.4] 13. Oxford, All Souls College, MS 37 [II.2] 14. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS e Musaeo 149 (SC 3659) [I.4] 15. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Fairfax 20 (SC 3900) [I.14] 16. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Hatton 53 (SC 4122) [I.5] 17. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 572 (SC 1570) [I.3] 18. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B 177 (SC 11544) [I.13] 19. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B 186 (SC 11547) [II.6] 20. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 6045 [II.3] TREVOR RUSSELL SMITH University of Leeds doi:10.1093/notesj/gjz166 ß The Author(s) (2020). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com Advance Access publication 3 January, 2020 PRIMAL VOWELS AND CRYING BABIES: BRACTON’S DE LEGIBUS AND GRAMMATICAL TRADITION The legal texts traditionally associated with Bracton,1 the De legibus et consuetudinis Angliae, are one of the great monuments of 1 On the question of the authorship of these texts, see the entry ‘Henry of Bracton’ in Medieval England: An Encyclopedia, ed. Paul Szarmach et al. (New York and London, 1998), which summarizes the problem and gives bibliographical information. Since the question is still to some extant sub judice, and since the ‘authorship’ of a legal text is more problematical and different than the ‘authorship’ of a literary one, and since it is convenient to use the traditional name, I will refer to the author of these texts as ‘Bracton’ in this paper. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/nq/article-abstract/67/1/6/5695645 by guest on 21 May 2020 3. London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 188, fols 1r–164r written ‘161r’ (main text with ‘Westminster’ continuation for Creation– 1306, similar to Luard’s MS 8, s. XIV)5 4. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 912 (SC 30437), fols 24r–225v (main text with unidentified continuation for Creation– 1306, s. XIVin.)6 5. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Lat. Hist. D 4, fols 76r–202v (abridged main text with ‘Merton’ continuation for Creation– 1306, olim Phillipps MS 11257, s. XIVmed.)7 6. Unknown private collection, olim A. Chester Beatty, MS W 70, fols 9r–140v (main text with ‘Merton’ continuation for 1066–1306, sold Sotheby’s lot 18, 3 December 1968, s. XIVin.)8 7