Humphrey Duke of Gloucester Part 48

Outside Oxford and the British Museum there are in England four ma.n.u.scripts which are thought to have once formed part of the Duke's library. In the possession of Mr. Henry Yates Thompson, of 19 Portman Square, London, there is a Psalter with an erased inscription at the end of the text, which, when treated with a chemical reagent, reveals the words, 'Cest livre est A moy Homfrey fiz frere et uncle de roys duc de Gloucestre comte de pembroc grant chambellan dangleterre, etc.' (Henry Yates Thompson MS., 58. Cf. the descriptive _Catalogue of the Thompson Collection_ (Second Series, Cambridge, 1902), pp. 75-81). This book was originally copied for the family of St. Omer of Mulbarton in Norfolk, and the illuminations, which make it one of the most beautiful examples of English art in two periods, are distinctly of the East Anglian school. The latter part of the volume was left unfinished, though part of the illuminating work must have been executed early in the fifteenth century. The absence of the Gloucester coat of arms in any part of the book shows that it must have been in its present state of completion when it came into the Duke's hands.

Another brightly decorated ma.n.u.script was till lately preserved in the library of Earl Fitzwilliam at Wentworth-Woodhouse in the shape of an English verse translation of Palladius, _De Re Rustica_ (Wentworth-Woodhouse MS., Z. i. 32). It is brilliantly illuminated, the poem being written in scarlet, crimson, blue, and green, with a few words in gold, and the effect is naturally more startling than beautiful. The book is bound richly but roughly in Russian leather, and inserted in the cover is an enamel of a woman of good but heavy features. Round this enamel runs the legend, 'Jacqueline, Dutchess of Bavaria, Countess of Holland, Zealand, and Hainault, wife to Humfrey, Duke of Gloucester, 1427.' We gather from a modern fly-leaf that this ma.n.u.script was in a 'rotten wood binding' in 1767, and the enamel was 'judged proper to make a part of the new binding.' According to the canons of Labarte this portrait cannot be earlier than the sixteenth century. (Inquiry at Wentworth-Woodhouse has resulted in a declaration that no such volume is now known to exist there. In the Bodleian Library, however, there is a photographic facsimile of it made in 1888.

Bodley MS., Arch. F. d. 1.) The proem to this translation contains a good deal about Gloucester's books at Oxford, and his relations.h.i.+p to the Italian Humanists in England. This, together with the portrait, have been declared undoubted evidence that it was the copy presented to Humphrey, and the presence of his arms in the initial letter of the poem strengthens, though it does not entirely confirm, this suggestion (see article in the _Athenaeum_ for November 17, 1888, p. 664). On the other hand, the fact that the introduction and text are written in different hands, would lead us to think that this was not the copy presented by the author to his patron.

The Cambridge University Library possesses a volume at the end of which occurs the inscription, 'Cest livre est A moy Honfrey duc de Gloucestre du don mess Robert Roos chevalier mon cousin' (Cambridge University Library, MS. Ee. 2, 17. It is described by P. Mayer in _Romania_, xv.

264, 265). It contains the last two sheets of a French translation of the _De Regimine Principum_ of ?gidius Roma.n.u.s, and the _Rei Militaris Inst.i.tuta_ of Flavius Renatus Vegetius, also translated into French by Jean de Vignai. Also at Cambridge, in the Library of King's College, there is a ma.n.u.script which is thought to have once belonged to Duke Humphrey. This is a translation of some of the speeches of St.

Athanasius by Antonio Beccaria, and is written in an Italian hand of the fifteenth century (King's College MS., 27). Prefixed is a dedication to the Duke, one leaf of which is missing, but it bears no inscription, nor are there signs of there ever having been one. This volume is the only surviving relic of the original library of the college, and it has been suggested that, since it is dedicated to Humphrey, it was part of his library, and given by Henry VI., with others of his uncle's books, to the college of his foundation, as some part of the spoils shared among the King's favourites after the tragedy of Bury. The old library catalogue, which dates from 1453, helps to confirm this theory, for in it occur translations of Plato and Plutarch, and several of the Latin cla.s.sics, which give a tone to the collection unlikely to be borrowed from any one but the late Duke of Gloucester (see _Catalogue of MSS. of King's College_, by Montague Rhodes James (Cambridge, 1905,) pp. 46, 47, 70, 71). The theory is ingenious and worth considering; at any rate it suggests a possible destination for those books which the University of Oxford sought so long and so vainly to obtain.

Some of Gloucester's books in course of time have found their way across the Channel, and six volumes, once part of his library, are now extant in France. In the Bibliotheque Nationale there are two Latin books which bear his autograph. The first is a collection of ancient panegyrics (Bibliotheque Nationale, MS. latin, 7805), on the first fly-leaf of which is written in the scribe's hand, 'Est ill.u.s.trissimi domini ducis Gloucestrensis,' which shows that the volume was written for Gloucester himself. These panegyrics are addressed by ancient writers to various emperors, the most interesting being one composed by the Younger Pliny for the benefit of Trajan. The whole ma.n.u.script is written in a neat Italian hand of the fifteenth century, and bears an illuminated letter at the beginning of each panegyric. On the verso of the last folio Humphrey has written 'Cest livre est A moy Homfrey duc de Gloucestre,'

and by him it was given to Oxford in 1443 (_Epist. Acad._, 235). The other Latin work is a collection of the letters of Cicero, which was given to the Duke by his friend Zano, Bishop of Bayeux (Bibliotheque Nationale, MS. latin, 8537). It is written in a clear, clerkly hand of the fifteenth century, and adorned with occasional illuminated letters.

The copyist was evidently no Greek scholar, for there are frequent gaps left for words of that language, which are supplied in a scrawling hand, with the Latin equivalents above. Several letters to Atticus are included, and the earlier ones are either addressed to or received from Brutus. At the end of the last folio is written, in large uncertain capital letters, 'Rudolfus Johannis de Misotis de Feraria SS. MCCCCXV.'

Below this again the Duke has written, 'Cest livre est A moy Homfrey duc de Gloucestre du don Reverend piere en Dieu Zanon eveque de Bayeux.' The volume was probably purchased by Zano in Italy and presented to his friend when he returned to England to visit him, later pa.s.sing by the gift of 1439 into the possession of the University of Oxford (_Epist.

Acad._, 183).

In the same library we find three French ma.n.u.scripts which Gloucester once possessed, and which, owing to the language in which they are written, do not naturally form part of his gifts to Oxford, consisting as these did exclusively of Latin works. An elaborately illuminated ma.n.u.script bearing the t.i.tle 'Le Bible hystoriaux' (Bibliotheque Nationale, MS. francais, 2) bears on the last folio written in a large hand, not that of the scribe, the inscription, 'Le dixiesme jour de Septembre lan mil quatrecens vingt sept fut cest livre donne a tres hault & tres puissant prince Humfrey duc de Gloucestre Conte de Haynau Holland, etc., & protecteur & deffenseur d'engleterre par Sire Jehan Stanley Chevalier ledit prince estant en l'abbaye notre dame A Chestre.'

In this French version of the Scriptures the books are arranged in an arbitrary order, and in the New Testament everything after the Epistle to the Hebrews is omitted. The pages are all adorned with elaborate floral decorations, and they also bear numerous small ill.u.s.trations of varying artistic value, some reaching a respectable standard, others being grotesque even for the age in which they were produced. The volume was originally written for William, Bishop of Sens, and in 1451 was bought in London by Philip de Loan, who was in the service of Philip, Duke of Burgundy. Thus one at least of Gloucester's books pa.s.sed to the Court of his great enemy.

The second of the French books once belonging to Humphrey, and now in this library, is a translation of the _Decameron_ of Boccaccio (Bibliotheque Nationale, MS. francais, 12,421). It is but poorly written, though a small portion of it is in a slightly better hand than the rest. A few coloured letters relieve the monotony of bad writing, and some fairly frequent ill.u.s.trations help to give colour to the ma.n.u.script. Some of the last are typical fifteenth-century work, possibly slightly less grotesque than those in the last-mentioned volume. Others, however, are beautifully executed in water-colours, and appear to be of a much later date. The presumption is that the original ill.u.s.trator did not fill up all the s.p.a.ces at his disposal, and that a later artist, who betrays more technical ability than even the fifteenth-century painter, Jean Fouquet, completed the work. At the end of the last folio there is to be found a faded yet quite legible inscription, which shows traces of an attempt at erasure. It reads, 'Cest livre est A moy Homfrey duc de Gloucestre du don mon tres chier cousin le conte de Warwic.' Less ornate is the third French ma.n.u.script in the Bibliotheque Nationale, which we can trace back to Duke Humphrey's library (Bibliotheque Nationale, MS. francais, 12,583). This is a poorly written copy of the early French romance, _Le Roman de Renard_. At the head of the first words stands a picture of inferior execution, and beyond this no adornment is attempted. The text ends abruptly on the 48th folio, and shows traces of mutilation. The fly-leaf at the beginning is pasted down, and on it is cut 'Homfrey' in fairly large characters. This seems to be a later addition, as an experimental 'H' has been cut higher up on the page, and its tail cuts the 'de' in the following inscription, 'Cest livre est a Humfrey duc de Gloucestre.'

The writing of this is not in the hand of Duke Humphrey, though there seems no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement.

The list of Gloucester's books now extant in Paris is brought to a conclusion with a large folio volume of 433 folios containing Livy's _Roman History_ translated into French by Pierre Bersuyre, or Bercheure, or Berchoire, and dedicated to King John of France (Bibliotheque de Ste.

Genevieve, MS. francais, 777). The ma.n.u.script is beautifully illuminated, and at the head of the t.i.tle-page there stands a painting divided into nine medallions showing various episodes in the history of Rome. There are two other large t.i.tle-pages in the volume, and others have been cut out. This ma.n.u.script must have formed part of Charles V.'s library, for the colours of the illuminations are blue, red, and white, such as are found in all his books. Thence it probably pa.s.sed into the possession of Charles VI., for a volume closely resembling it is to be found in the catalogue of this king's library drawn up by order of Bedford (_Catalogue des Ma.n.u.scrits de la Bibliotheque de Sainte Genevieve_, par Ch. Kohler (Paris, 1893), vol. i. p. 370, quoting a MS.

in the same library). The English regent sent it to his brother, who in his turn possibly sent it to Alfonso of Aragon. Below a rubbed s.p.a.ce at the end of the last sentence, which is supposed to have held the _ex libris_ of Charles VI., stand these words, 'Cest livre fut envoye des parties de France et donne par mons le regent le royaume duc de Bedford a mons le duc de Gloucestre son beau frere l'an mil quatre cens vingt sept.'

Thus of the great library, at the size of which we can only guess, only some twenty-seven works in twenty-nine volumes, at the most generous computation, survive. Others there may be which have escaped the notice of librarians, cataloguers, and the researches of the present writer, or may lie buried in the dust of unexplored libraries. Yet even were this list of survivals to be doubled or trebled the loss would be enormous.

APPENDIX B

THE TOMB OF HUMPHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER

In Cotton MS., Claudius, A. viii. ff. 195-198, there is an entry of which the t.i.tle runs: 'In this sedule be conteyned the charges and observances appointed by the n.o.ble Prince Humfrey late Duke Gloucester to be perpetually boren by thabbot and Convent of the Monastery of Seint Alban.' The entries contained in the schedule are as follows:--

Paid by the said Abbot and convent 'for making of the tombe and place of sepulture,' 433, 6s. 8d.

To two priests for saying Ma.s.s daily at the altar of the tomb at the rate of 6d. a day each. 18, 5s. per annum.

To the Abbot for his expenses on the 'day of anniversary of the Duke,'

40s. per annum, and to the Prior for the same, 20s. per annum.

To 40 monks in orders, to be paid on this 'day of anniversary' every year, 6s. 8d. each, 13s, 6s. 8d.

To 8 monks as above on the same day, 3s. 4d. each, 1, 6s. 8d.

To an 'ankress' at St. Peter's Church and another at St. Michael's on that same day each year, 20d.

To be distributed to the poor on that day each year, 40s.

To 13 poor men bearing torches round the tomb on that day each year, 2s.

6d. each, 1, 8s. 2d.

To wax burnt daily at the Duke's Ma.s.s and torches at his anniversary, 6, 13s. 4d.

To the kitchen of the monastery 'in relief of the great decay of the livelod of the said monasterie in the marches of Scotland, which before time had been appointed to the said Kechyn,' 60 per annum.

In payment for these expenses, the Duke transferred to the monastery the alien Priory of Pembroke in his possession.

(This schedule is printed in Dugdale's _Monasticon_, ii. 202, and in the notes to the _English Chronicle_, edited by J. S. Davies, p. 195.)

On the south wall of St. Alban's shrine, close to Humphrey's tomb, an epitaph was once written, but it is now lost owing to restoration. It was the work of Dr. John Westerman, Vicar of Bushey early in the seventeenth century, and was placed under Gloucester's arms, which were surmounted by a coronet.

PIAE MEMORIAE V. OPT.

SACRUM

SEROTINUM

Hic jacet Humfredus dux ille Glocestrius olim Henrici Regis protector, fraudis ineptae Delector; dum ficta notat miracula caeci, Lumen erat Patriae, columen venerabilis regni: Pacis amans, musisque favens melioribus, unde Gratum Opus Oxonio, quae nunc schola sacra refulget Invida sed mulier regno, regi, sibi nequam, Abstulit hunc, humili vix hoc dignata sepulchro Invidia rumpente tamen post funera vivit.

Deo Gloria.

(Weever, _Ancient Funeral Monuments_, p. 555, writing in 1631; Ashmole MS., 784, f. 41, writing in 1657; Sandford, _Genealogical History_, 309, writing in 1677 and dating the epitaph about 60 years earlier; _History of the County of Hertfords.h.i.+re_, by Robert Clutterbuck (London, 1815), i. 73.)

The third line of this epitaph refers to a legend which first appears in the works of Sir Thomas More, and which had a great popularity at one time. It recounts how a man, who declared that he had been blind from birth and that he had been miraculously cured at the shrine of St.

Alban, was proved to be lying by the Duke of Gloucester, who asked him the colours of the coats of the various people standing round and was answered correctly. As the man declared that his sight had been restored that very day, the impossibility of his having learned the various colours in so short a time proved the baselessness of his story. (Foxe, _Acts and Monuments_, iii. 713; cf. Shakespeare, Second Part of _King Henry VI._, Act II. Scene i.)

Later generations made a strange mistake with regard to the place where Duke Humphrey was buried. The reverent affection with which his name was regarded, after the defamations of the Lancastrians had caused a reaction which went to the opposite extreme, led the Londoners to do him honour, and for this purpose they selected a tomb in the old St. Paul's Cathedral. By what chance the mistake was made cannot be known, but in the days of John Stow, the chronicler, the tomb of Sir John Beauchamp, son of Guy, Earl of Warwick, who died in 1358, was thought to contain the remains of the 'Good Duke.' Every year a ceremony was observed when 'on May Day tankard-bearers, watermen, and some other of like quality beside, would use to come to the same tombe early in the morning' and strew herbs and sprinkle water thereon. The precise significance of this proceeding seems to be unknown. (Stow's _Survey of London_, ed. Thomas, 1842, p. 125.)

In connection with this mistake as to Gloucester's tomb, there grew up a saying, which is known to most people at the present day, though in many cases the origin is forgotten. 'To dine with Duke Humphrey' was till comparatively recent years synonymous with not dining at all, and the saying arose from the mistaken idea, that the tomb in St. Paul's was Gloucester's last resting-place. In the days when the Cathedral was a public meeting-place for Londoners, and a centre of social and commercial life, it was the custom for certain gallants, whose pretensions were greater than their purses were full, to hang about there in the hopes of receiving an invitation to dinner, and failing in their quest, they were compelled to dispense with dinner altogether. The rendezvous of these hangers-on of society, who sought to live on men whose social position they despised, was opposite the tomb of Sir John Beauchamp, and it is of them that Thomas Dekker, who has left us so many interesting facts relating to the early seventeenth century, wrote, when he said: 'Such schemes are laid about eleven o'clock in St. Paul's (even amongst those that wear gilt rapiers by their sides), where for that noone they may s.h.i.+ft from Duke Humphrey, and be furnished with dinner at some meaner man's table' (Dekker's _Dead Terme_, D. 3). Those that failed in their endeavours, and were left dinnerless near the tomb where they had taken their stand, were therefore said 'to have dined with Duke Humphrey.' A reflection of this same phrase is to be found in Bishop Corbet's 'Letter to the Duke of Buckingham,' where he alludes to

'Poets of Paules, those of Duke Humfrey's messe, That feed on nought but graves and emptiness.'

APPENDIX C

GLOUCESTER'S WILL

Wheathampsted tells us that the Duke died intestate (Whethamstede, i.

74), and on March 24, 1427, a commission was issued to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Say de Sele, Sir Thomas Stanley, John Somerset, and Richard Chester, empowering them to dispose of the goods and chattels of the late Duke of Gloucester, since he had died intestate (_Rot. Pat._, 25 _Henry VI._, Part ii. m. 35; Rymer, V. i. 171). On the other hand, there is a strong presumption that a will did really exist, and that the Duke's enemies suppressed it. No such doc.u.ment has survived, but in one of their frequent letters written to various persons in the hope of securing the books promised to them, the authorities of the University of Oxford ask for a copy of Gloucester's will, as though it were a well-known fact that such a doc.u.ment existed (_Epist. Acad._, 285). In several other letters the will is referred to, though it is noticeable that when writing to the King on the subject, its existence is not mentioned (_Epist. Acad._, 252). The date of this last letter is 1447, whilst the former was written in 1450, which seems to imply that the University had obtained evidence of the existence of a will in the interval. Moreover, in one letter there is a thinly veiled suggestion that those in power were diverting the property of the late Duke to their own private ends (_Epist. Acad._, 286). It seems likely that Gloucester's enemies seized the majority of his property, and that the King himself presented some of his uncle's possessions to the foundations at Eton and Cambridge in which he was so much interested.

Certainly some church ornaments and jewels, which had belonged to Humphrey, and were then in the keeping of the Abbey of St. Albans, found their way to these inst.i.tutions, though the monks were to a certain extent compensated for the loss (_Rot. Parl._, v. 307; Whethamstede, i.

65), and we have already shown the probability that the Library of King's College, Cambridge, was begun with a collection of Humphrey's books. It is noteworthy that a loving-cup, now in the possession of Christ's College, bears the arms of Gloucester quartered with those of his Cobham wife; (_ex relatione_ Sir Alfred Scott-Gatty, Garter); this, too, was probably part of the plunder which fell to the King on his uncle's death. The supposition that there was a will, and that it was suppressed, is strengthened by the fact that the Parliament of Bury pa.s.sed an ordinance annulling Eleanor of Gloucester's right to any dower, or to any freehold or other possession left to her by her husband (_Rot. Parl._, v. 135). Apart from the question of dower, how could Eleanor have any claim to the late Duke's possessions except under the terms of his will?

It is significant that the question of the settlement of Duke Humphrey's affairs was reopened by the Parliament which was called after the first battle of St. Albans under Yorkist influence, the same a.s.sembly that pet.i.tioned the King for the vindication of his uncle's memory. In another pet.i.tion this Parliament besought the King to provide for the administration of Gloucester's estate, since his creditors had not been paid, and were in great want. It was suggested that fresh commissioners for this purpose should be appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that they should have right of action against those who were detaining the property of the Duke illegally. It was definitely stated that the existing goods and chattels would not both pay his debts and fulfil his will, a statement which cannot be regarded as consistent with the a.s.sertion that he died intestate (_Rot. Parl._, v. 339). The pet.i.tion was dismissed with the familiar formula 'Le roi s'advisera,'

but some steps were ultimately taken, and in 1462 we find the Archbishop of Canterbury busy in arranging for 'the performance of the will of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester' (Westminster Abbey MSS., Miscellanea, Press 6, Box 2, Parcel 20; see _Hist. MSS. Rep._, iv., Appendix, p.