Nottingham, University Library, WLC/LM/6
[MSPart 3]
General information
| Folios | 16 |
| Folio notes: | The first folios of this part of the manuscript have been displaced and are now at the front of the manuscript (ff. a-f). Another quire of 10 folios is at the rear of the manuscript. |
| Language | Language object (44) |
| Approx. date | c. 1200 to 1300 |
| Date notes | Based on the layout and script, one would assume a date in the first half of the thirteenth century. However, the contents - the fabliaux of Gautier le Leu - are usually dated to as late as 1267. If this section of the manuscript can be regarded as belonging to the core section, a dating in the third quarter of the thirteenth century would be justified and the layout and writing could be considered as archaic for the period. Otherwise, a revised dating of the oeuvre of le Leu would be in order, positioning him somewhere in the first half of the century, c. 1230. The evidence is inconclusive. On the one hand, in this section of the manuscript the decoration has not been completed, as opposed to the main section. On the other, hand and layout are strikingly similar, so a case can certainly be made for this part originally belonging to the manuscript and the layout either being intentionally archaic or the dating of the oeuvre of Gautier de Leu being too late. |
| Place(s) of production | Northern France |
| First words of second recto folio | [damaged] |
| First words of last recto folio | [f. 345ra] Q(ue) nos dones .i. g(ra)nt roiame / |
| Incipit | [damaged] |
| Explicit | [f. 345vb] Cente(n)gent bie(n) tot ?..?a?..?i / |
Material
| Material: | Material object (4) |
| Watermark: | na |
| Condition: | This part of the manuscript, especially the folios at the front of the manuscript are in a deplorable condition. Corners have been torn and the first folios a and b have been severely damaged by water. The vellum is of inferior quality, and does not match the rest of the manuscript which is one argument to consider these two quires as a different part, produced separately from the rest of the manuscript. |
Structure
| Collation: | 16 210 |
| Quire structure: | Six folios of the first quire survive, ten of the second. It is plausible that material has been lost from both units or that they once belonged to a larger project. |
| Quire marks: | MSQuiremarkDisposition object (21) |
| Catchwords: | |
| Catchword disposition: | MSCatchwordDisposition object (12) |
Physical description
| General description: | na |
| General illustration: | No illustration. |
| General decoration: | Space has been left for two-line initials which have not been completed, which provides another argument to say that these quires have been added to the core manuscript at a later stage. Spaces also left for rubricated headings, also not completed. Titles in the upper margin, like in the previous sections of the manuscript, but these may be later (but still 13th c.) additions. |
| Evidence of readership: | f. 345v, inner margin, signature in English hand, 15th c., ‘Iohan Bertrem de / Thorp Kilton’ |
| Foliations description: | Modern foliation (a-f) in the lower margin of the recto. |
Mise en page
| Description 1 | Prickings visible in the inner margin, outer margin and lower margin. The structure of the layout is very similar to the one in the core manuscript, having also two narrow columns on either side of the written area. |
| Page sampled | f. 338r |
| Layout | None |
| Page dimensions | 297x200 (mm) |
| Justification | 212x135 (mm) |
| Columns | 29mm between columns Column ruling present in Colours object (4) (RulingMaterials object (3) ) |
| Lines | 48 Line ruling present in Colours object (4) (RulingMaterials object (3) ) |
| Rubrication | None. |
| Writing above top line? | True |
| Sample page layout: | |
Hand(s)
| Level of Execution: | Execution object (4) |
| Script | Script object (4) |
| Folio range | From f. ara to f. fvb |
| Date | ?1200 to 1250 |
| Scribe description: | The hand is no doubt contemporary to that of the core manuscript [MSPart 2]. Gaggero and Lunardi keep open the possibility that the scribe is the same as scribe 1 of the core sections. The writing is indeed strikingly similar. The use of 'i'-longa in final position and a very fine form of trailing 's' may be particular to this scribe, but otherwise the hand is very close to that which copied the final quires of the 'Aspremont' in the core manuscript. |
| Notes | |