if in its original the name of the prince was not stated at the end, as Russell states it, to show that he was not gammoning his readers? Why does Sloane 1315 omit lines in some of its stanzas, and words in some of its lines, that the Harleian Russell enables us to fill up? Why does it too make its writer refer to the pupil’s lord and sovereign, if in its original the author did not clench his teaching by asserting, as Russell does, that he had served one? This Sloane 1315 may well have been copied by a man like Wynkyn de Worde, who wished not to show the real writer of the treatise. On the whole, I incline to believe that John Russell’s Book of Norture was written by him, and that either the Epilogue to it was a fiction of his, or was written by the superintender of the particular copy in the Harleian MS. 4011, Russell’s own work terminating with the Amen! after line 1234.
But whether we consider Russell’s Boke another’s, or as in the main his own,—allowing that in parts he may have used previous pieces on the subjects he treats of, as he has used Stans Puer (or its original) in his Symple Condicions, [l. 277-304],—if we ask what the Boke contains, the answer is, that it is a complete Manual for the Valet, Butler, Footman, Carver, Taster, Dinner-arranger, Hippocras-maker, Usher and Marshal of the Nobleman of the time when the work was written, the middle of the fifteenth century.—For I take the date of the composition of the work to be somewhat earlier than that of the MS. it is here printed from, and suppose Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, “imprisoned and murdered 1447,” to have been still alive when his Marshal penned it.—Reading it, we see “The Good Duke” rise and dress[7], go to Chapel and meals, entertain at feasts in Hall, then undress and retire to rest; we hear how his head was combed with an ivory comb, his stomacher warmed, his petycote put on, his slippers brown as the waterleech got ready, his privy-seat
prepared, and his urinal kept in waiting; how his bath was made, his table laid, his guests arranged, his viands carved, and his salt smoothed[8]; we are told how nearly all the birds that fly, the animals that walk the earth, the fish that swim in river and sea, are food for the pot: we hear of dishes strange to us[9], beaver’s tail, osprey, brewe, venprides, whale, swordfish, seal, torrentyne, pety perveis or perneis, and gravell of beef[10]. Bills of fare for flesh and fish days are laid before us; admired Sotiltees or Devices are described; and he who cares to do so may fancy for himself the Duke and all his brilliant circle feasting in Hall, John Russell looking on, and taking care that all goes right.[11] I am not going to try my hand at the sketch, as I do not write for men in the depths of that deducated Philistinism which lately made a literary man say to one of our members on his printing a book of the 15th century, “Is it possible that you care how those barbarians, our ancestors, lived?” If any one who takes up this tract, will not read it through, the loss is his; those who do work at it will gladly acknowledge their gain. That it is worthy of the
attention of all to whose ears tidings of Early England come with welcome sound across the wide water of four hundred years, I unhesitatingly assert. That it has interested me, let the time its notes have taken on this, a fresh subject to me, testify. If any should object to the extent of them[12], or to any words in them that may offend his ear, let him excuse them for the sake of what he thinks rightly present. There are still many subjects and words insufficiently illustrated in the comments, and for the names venprides ([l. 820]); sprotis, (? sprats, as in Sloane 1315), and torrentille ([l. 548]); almond iardyne ([l. 744]); ginger colombyne, valadyne, and maydelyne ([l. 132]-3); leche dugard, &c., I have not been able to find meanings. Explanations and helps I shall gladly receive, in the hope that they may appear in another volume of like kind for which I trust soon to find more MSS. Of other MSS. of like kind I also ask for notice.
The reason for reprinting Wynkyn de Worde’s Boke of Keruynge, which I had not at first thought of, was because its identity of phrase and word with many parts of Russell,—a thing which came on me with a curious feeling of surprise as I turned over the leaves,—made it certain that de Worde either abstracted in prose Russell’s MS., chopping off his lines’ tails,—adding also bits here[13], leaving out others there,—or else that both writers copied a common original. The most cursory perusal will show this to be the case. It was not alone by happy chance that when Russell had said
O Fruture viant / Fruter sawge byñ good / bettur is Frutur powche;
Appulle fruture / is good hoot / but þe cold ye not towche (l. 501-2)
Wynkyn de Worde delivered himself of
“Fruyter vaunte, fruyter say be good; better is fruyter pouche;
apple fruyters ben good good hote / and all colde fruters, touche