The Ward Catalogue dates the MS in the fifteenth-century. Guddat-Figge suggests the middle of the fifteenth-century in what appears to be a compromise between the Register 's suggested "early 15th c." and the MED Plan's more precise 1475 .¹.

The MS is vellum, the quarto measuring 21.2cm. x 15.5cm.

The MS is comprised of 54 folios. Collation is made somewhat confusing by the fact that at some point two leaves which had been bound out of order were later inserted in the correct location and were so identified with a new foliation in pencil. The two foliations are resolved in the sixth quire, f. 34, at the end of The Seege of Troye and preceding Robert of Sicily. The size of the quires varies because of excisions from quires 1, 3, 6, and 8. Only a single bifolium remains in quire 3 where an adjoining bifolium has been excised, thus resulting in a "mini" quire of 2 leaves. The quire containing Robert of Sicily fares only slightly better: one leaf has been excised from what had been two bifolia, so that 3 leaves remain, with Robert of Sicily beginning on the last leaf of the quire. The foliation (with the old foliation indicated in parentheses) and quiring are illustrated below:

Note: this quiring does not correspond to that of Guddat-Figge, who apparently does not consider the two leaves of quire 3 to be a separate gathering. The inclusion of Robert of Sicily in the mis-foliated section indicates that it was originally bound with the Seege of Troye. Indeed, the explicit of the latter and the untitled Robert of Sicily appear on facing leaves.

Neither scribe employs catchwords. Guddat-Figge incorrectly notes that there are no signatures. Although the leaves do appear to have been trimmed, five sets of discernible signatures correspond to the quires as follows:

A comparison of the quire signatures with the illustrations above suggests that quires 2 and 3 were once intended as a single gathering: traces of signatures bearing the initial [b] followed by strokes are visible on ff. 8r, 9r, 11r, and 15r at which point the initial changes to [c]. At some point this single gathering was separated into 2 quires of 2 bifolia (4 leaves) each with quire 3 eventually losing one bifolium. Quires 6 and 7 exhibit a similar pattern of having been divided although the division cannot be confirmed by legible signatures in quire 7. The rationale for dividing the gatherings appears related to the excision of a leaf or leaves in what would have been the middle of the full quire. In quire 1, however, two additional bifolia are added to compensate for leaves lost through excision. At any rate, the excision of leaves for any number of reasons seems to have caused both the inconsistency in compilation and the confusion in foliation. Of special interest is the signature "fin" on f. 43, which occurs at the midpoint rather than the end of quire 8. The inscription does, of course, mark the "fin" of Robert of Sicily, but it also supports the argument for the "fin" of the first scribal stint-see (c) below.

(a) General Condition

This modest manuscript quite literally shows signs of wear and tear, particularly at quire 6 and following, the portion of the manuscript containing Robert of Sicily. Leaves are stained and often worn to the point of translucence from extensive handling.

Damage to the manuscript appears to have been caused from extensive use rather than abuse. The condition of this modest codex and the efforts to repair any serious damage to it attest to the popularity of its contents. The pattern of discoloration in quire 8 acquires significance when considered in relation to the manuscript's inconsistent quiring. The excision of leaves in four quires, for example, raises questions concerning the circumstances and sequence of both the copying and compilation of Harley 525.

(b) Decoration and rubrication

None of the works in the manuscript is titled. Items 1 and 2 are both decorated with blue two and three line initials decorated with red pen flourishes that extend horizontially and vertically to frame the text. Robert of Sicily is decorated with elaborately flourished initials: a 3-line initial P on f. 35r; a 2-line S on f. 39v; and a 3-line T with blue and red flourishes extending to the bottom margin on 43r. Significantly, four-line and two-line spaces reserved for initials in the Speculum Gy de Warewyke that completes the last quire are left unfinished.

(c) Number of scribes

The debate surrounding the number of scribes is largely in response to the assertion by G.L. Morrill that although the script varies in size near the end of the MS, "there is no indication of a second copyist." .² Guddat-Figge argues to the contrary that on f. 44r the hand not only becomes larger and clumsier but is "in blacker ink and using a different type of script; the letters are carefully detached" (185). It is, perhaps, the inconsistent quality of the first hand that leads Morrill to discount the variations so apparent beginning with f. 44r. For example, from f. 17v through f. 18r, the scribe appears to struggle with inking problems with some words in jet black as opposed to the sepia toned ink that has characterized the manuscript up to this point. The inking may change from verse to verse, word to word, and occasionally from letter to letter. The script itself appears larger and less tightly controlled than previously. The scribe increases the space between words albeit slightly. Folio 18r definitely contrasts with earlier script, its variations in inking being the most distracting. The scribe, too, appears to have been momentarily distracted, for he repeats the last verse on f. 18v as the first verse of f. 19r, a lapse he corrects by crossing out the final verse on f. 18v. On ff. 18v and 19r, however, the scribe does return to the controlled, uniform script in sepia-toned ink. At f. 25r, the beginning of the fifth quire, the inking once again becomes distinctly blackened only to resume the lighter sepia tone on 26r. On ff. 33v and 34r, the script appears slightly heavier and more expansive, returning to the more controlled or compact script at f. 35r, the beginning of Robert of Sicily. .³ Analysis of letter-forms, particularly [d], [b], [s], [r], [y], [g] and [h] confirms ff. 1-43v as the work of a single hand, however inconsistent the quality. The variations can be accounted for by scribal tension, fatigue, or distraction; problems in obtaining and preparing ink; and changes in writing tools. With respect to the changes that occur on f. 44r, however, palaeographical evidence supports Guddat-Figge's claim for a second scribe. The hand is characterized by heightening, or at least a sense of heightened vertical strokes; broader, more prominent ducts; and heavier downstrokes on [s], [†], and [f]. All strokes achieve a more angular effect than the previous hand. But a distinction between the two hands could be drawn from a comparison of the letter-forms [r], [g], [d], and [w] alone:

Subtle but distinct differences in the forms [h], [l], [s], [b], [I], and [y] reinforce the argument for a second scribe. Scribe 2 also appears to use more abbreviations; the orthography appears more consistent and representative of a later date. The space between letter-forms increases until the verse expands from margin to margin. The number of lines per leaf decreases from 26-29 to 23-24. All these factors confirm a scribal change at f. 44r in the midst of Robert of Sicily in the middle of the eighth quire. The plan of decoration indicates that the entire manuscript was perhaps intended as the project of one scribe, who for any number of reasons was unable to complete the task. This interruption most likely accounts for the unfinished decoration in item 3. Demand for the popular tales may also have put the manuscript into circulation prematurely. To summarize, then, Scribe 1 is responsible for ff. 1-43v; Scribe 2 takes over from ff. 44r-53r.

(d) Palaeographical features

Scribal hand 1 has been identified as Anglicana "with traces of Secretary influence; scribe 2 appears to attempt Anglicana Formata" (Guddat-Figge 185). Robert of Sicily, of course, shares palaeographical features of both hands so that it is a palaeographical sampler of sorts. The [r], for example, assumes at least five forms; the [s], three. The [e] is generally closed; a single compartment [a] is dissected by a diagonal stroke. Both [h] and [l] are generally crossed. The form [y] often appears in place of [g], and [d] is interchangeable with [†] in such forms as broder, oder, toder, and nodyr. The [†] appears interchangeably with [th]. Calligraphic flourishes dramatize the lift off of terminal [g] and [t], whereas the flourish of [n] appears intended to distinguish it from the [u]. The [i] is frequently "dotted" by means of a hairline stroke. Standard abbreviations are employed.

(e) Layout and presentation of text

The text of all three items is presented in single columns of approximately 26-29 lines (scribe 1) or 23-24 lines (scribe 2). Margins are generous at 2.5cm. top; 3.7-4.0cm. bottom; 2.5-3cm. inner; and 5.0cm. outer. Each work begins on a new folio. Three folios are left blank in the last quire. Folios are ruled, but there is no evidence of pricking. The margins and ruling appear more distinct in scribe 2's stint.

(f) Marginalia

There is no evidence of marginal notation or commentary.

E. MS Provenance

The provenance of Harley 525 is not known. The Atlas, drawing its linguistic profile from M.E. Barnicle's analysis in her edition of The Seege of Troye, . ⁴ places Harley 525 in Bedfordshire. It is more specifically located in the south central region of the county in the vicinity of the modern towns of Taddington and Milton Bryan. .⁵ Interestingly, these towns are roughly eight to ten miles north of the Buckinghamshire locale of Harley 1701. The Cistercian Abbey at Woburn is but four to six miles away, although the secular contents of this codex do not suggest a monastic provenance. We can conclude only that the romance Robert of Sicily remained viable and in circulation in this region for several generations.

F. Type or purpose

Compiled as a secular miscellany, MS Harley 525 is one of the few volumes devoted entirely to verse romances. The Ward Catalogue describes Gy de Warewyke as a "sermon in verse" and also discusses the manuscript under the heading of classical romance (I: 84-86, 765). The Catalogue of Harleian MSS refers to Gy de Warewyke as a "theological Poem" and introduces Robert of Sicily as a tale of Robert, King of Sicily, "and how, by miracle, God abased his pride" (I: 341). The collocation of these particular romances endows Robert of Sicily with an aura of historical rather than hagiographical legend.

Robert of Sicily appears to have been an integral part of this codex from planning through implementation. Even if the tale of Gy de Warewyke was added at a later date, its selection reflects a concern for maintaining a consistent theme. See the Literary Introduction above for Andrea Hopkins's discussion of both Robert of Sicily and Gy de Warewyke as examples of penitential romance.

H. Summary and Interpretation

The modest appearance of this codex belies the care with which it was planned at the same time it testifies to the appeal of its secular content. That the decoration of the final work was not completed tells us only that the system broke down at this point, most likely due to a time lag before the insertion of The Speculum Gy de Warewyke and, with it, a change in scribes. Although the second scribal stint begins with the opening of The Seege of Troye, this opening occurs in the middle of the last quire. The new scribe is quite literally filling in and may not have been fully informed regarding procedure. Because three folios--two of them ruled--are left blank in the final quire, it is conceivable that the manuscript-in-progress was set aside awaiting a short exemplar to complete the gathering, causing yet another delay. At least four other scenarios are possible: First, the in-house artist may simply no longer have been available; second, a supervisor quickly surveying the codex might easily have missed checking the last few folios; third, perhaps a deadline had passed and the manuscript had to be delivered regardless of its state; or fourth, what appears quite likely, the romances were in such demand that its incomplete state was inconsequential.

While any one or combination of these scenarios is possible, those including the pressure of demand and deadline appear most feasible considering the contents. What is more problematic is the cause and significance of the substantial number of excisions. It is difficult to imagine that damaged, unsuitable vellum would have been selected for a manuscript for which modest decoration was planned. And even though the first scribe hits a few rough patches, it seems unlikely that he would have erred to the extent of excising so many leaves. Apprentice scribes might be accountable, but this is a stretch. Certainly the volume bears the scars and mending of heavy use, but this too leads nowhere. In light of the three folios left blank at the end of the manuscript, questions of the excisions are particularly intriguing--and remain unresolved.

Although the provenance and details of compilation remain conjectural, post- medieval ownership can be traced from Sir Robert Cotton, whose signature appears in the top margin of f. 1. Cotton's name appears on three manuscripts in the collections of Simonds D'Ewes, .⁶ the antiquarian who sold his vast collection containing MSS Harley 1-600 to Robert Harley for £ 450 Oct. 4, 1705--Harley's first block purchase. .⁷ How Harley 525 reached D'Ewes cannot be ascertained, but the relationship between Sir Robert Cotton and D'Ewes appears to have been that of mature mentor and young admiring-aspiring collector. The two frequently exchanged manuscripts with Cotton appearing to get the better of the deal while the young D'Ewes successfully curried favor. .⁸

In the end, Sir Simonds D'Ewes, 1602-1650, first baronet of Stow Hall, Stowlangtoft, near Bury St. Edmunds, assembled an outstanding collection of mansucripts and charters remarkable for their historical value. .⁹ These manuscripts alone make up nearly half of the Harleian collection. Harley 525 appears on f. 40r of D'Ewes library list A, now BL MS Addit. 22918. .¹⁰ Humfrey Wanley, Harley's trusted librarian, handled the sale of the D'Ewes library. He had examined the collection in October of 1703 at Stow Hall and in a letter dated Nov. 20, wrote to Robert Harley describing the manuscripts, books, drawings, coins and pictures and reccommending their purchase. D'Ewes was compelled to sell his library due to his son's lack of appreciation and interest in maintaining the collection. It is apparent from their exchange of letters that Wanley and D'Ewes enjoyed a warm relationship to the extent that after the sale, D'Ewes offered Wanley a prized portrait of Sir Robert Cotton. .¹¹

I. References to MS description

For notices and descriptions regarding BL Harley 525, consult the following: 

1 Ward I:765; Guddat-Figge 184; Register I:307.

2 G.L. Morril, ed., Speculum guy de Warewyke, and English Poem, EETS es 75,76 (1898; London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1973) xxxiv.

3 See Christopher De Hamel, Medieval Craftsmen: Scribes and Illuminators (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992) 32-33 on inking. Copperas is the ingredient that turns the solution from pale brown into black.

4 M.E. Barnicle, The Seege or Batayle of Troye, EETS os 172 (1927; London: Oxford UP, 1971) 164ff.

5 See A. McIntosh, M.L. Samuels, and Michael Benskin, A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English, 4 vols. (Aberdeen: Aberdeen UP, 1986) I: 110; Linguistic Profile 8190; III: 6; IV: 331,333 and Map 5 338.

6 C.E. Wright, Fontes Harleiani : A Study of the Sources of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts in the British Museum, British Museum Bicentenary Publications 3(London, 1972) 112. See also A.G. Watson, "Sir Robert Cotton and Sir Simonds D’Ewes: An Exchange of Manuscripts," The British Museum Quarterly xxv 1-2(1962): 23.

7 C.E. Wright and Ruth Wright, The Diary of Humfrey Wanley 1715-1726 I: 1715-23 (London: The Bibliographical Society, 1966) xviii.

8 Watson, 23, details one rather unbalanced transaction in 1626 that reflects on the relationship of the two collectors. In 1626 D’Ewes was Cotton’s partner in an investigation of two conflicting claims to the earldom of Oxford, evidence that he had indeed gained Cotton’s approbation. 

9 Wright, Fontes, 131.

10 See Andrew Watson’s edition of this catalogue in The Library of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, British Museum Bicentenary Publications 2 (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1966) v, 204-05.

11 See Wright, Diary, xviii. For a full discussion of Edward Harley, the son who did carry on the tradition after his father was politically ruined and a prisoner, see Wright, "Portrait of a Bibliophile viii [sic] Edward Harley, 2nd Earl of Oxford, 1689-1741," The Book Collector 11 (1962):158-74.