Part 13 (1/2)

Now good son, y haue shewed the / & brought e in vre, to know e Curtesie of court / & these ow may take in cur{e}, In pantry / botery / or celler{e} / & in kervyng{e} a-for{e} a sovereyn{e} demewr{e}, A sewer / or a m{er}shall{e}: in es science / y suppose ye byn sewr{e},

Which in my dayes y lernyd with{e} a prynce full{e} royall{e}, with whom vscher{e} in chambur was y, & m{er}shalle also in hall{e}, vnto whom all{e} ese officer{es} for{e}seid / ey eu{er} ente{n}de shall{e}, Evir to fulfill{e} my co{m}maundement when at y to em call{e}:

For we may allow & dissalow / our{e} office is e cheeff In celler{e} & spicery / & the Cooke, be he looth{e} or leeff.

(l. 1173-82.)

Further on, at line 1211, he says,

”Moor{e} of is co{n}nyng{e} y Cast not me to contreve: my tyme is not to tary, hit drawest fast to eve.

is tretyse at y haue ent.i.tled, if it ye entende to p{re}ve, y a.s.sayed me self in youth{e} w{i}t{h}-outen any greve.

while y was yong{e} y-nough{e} & l.u.s.ty in dede, y enioyed ese maters foreseid / & to lerne y toke good hede; but croked age hath{e} co{m}pelled me / & leue court y must nede.

erfor{e}, son{e}, a.s.say thy self / & G.o.d shall{e} be y spede.”

And again, at line 1227,

”Now, good son, thy self, w{i}t{h} other {a}t shall{e} e succede, which{e} us boke of nurtur{e} shall{e} note / lerne, & ou{er} rede, pray for the sowle of Iohn Russell{e}, at G.o.d do hym mede, Som tyme s{er}uaunde w{i}t{h} duke vmfrey, duc[A] of Glowcet{ur} in dede.

For at prynce pereles prayeth{e} / & for suche other mo, e sowle of my wife / my fadur and modir also, vn-to Mary modyr and mayd / she fende us from owr{e} foe, and bryng{e} vs all{e} to blis when we shall{e} hens goo. =AMEN=.”

[Text Note: The _duc_ has a red stroke through it, probably to cut it out.]

As to his Boke, besides what is quoted above, John Russell says,

Go forth{e} lytell{e} boke, and lowly ow me co{m}mende vnto all{e} yong{e} gentilmen / {a}t l.u.s.t to lerne or entende, and specially to em at han exsperience, p{ra}yng{e} e[m] to amend{e} and correcte at is amysse, er{e} as y fawte or offende.

And if so at any be founde / as rou? myn necligence, Cast e cawse on my copy / rude / & bar{e} of eloquence, which{e} to d{ra}we out [I] haue do my besy diligence, redily to reforme hit / by reson and bettur sentence.

As for ryme or reson, e for{e}wryter was not to blame, For as he founde hit aforne hym, so wrote he e same, and augh{e} he or y in our{e} mater{e} digres or degrade, blame neithur of vs / For we neuyr{e} hit made;

Symple as y had insight / somwhat e ryme y correcte; blame y cowde no man / y haue no persone suspecte.

Now, good G.o.d, graunt vs grace / our{e} sowles neu{er} to Infecte!

an may we regne in i regiou{n} / et{er}nally w{i}t{h} thyne electe.

(l. 1235-50.)

If John Russell was the writer of the Epilogue quoted above, lines 1235-50, then it would seem that in this Treatise he only corrected and touched up some earlier Book of Norture which he had used in his youth, and which, if Sloane 2027 be not its original, may be still extant in its primal state in Mr Arthur Davenport's MS., ”How to serve a Lord,”

_said_ to be of the fourteenth century[6], and now supposed to be stowed away in a hayloft with the owner's other books, awaiting the rebuilding and fitting of a fired house. I only hope this MS. may prove to be Russell's original, as Mr Davenport has most kindly promised to let me copy and print it for the Society. Meantime it is possible to consider John Russell's Book of Norture as his own. For early poets and writers of verse seem to have liked this fiction of attributing their books to other people, and it is seldom that you find them acknowledging that they have imagined their Poems on their own heads, as Hampole has it in his _p.r.i.c.ke of Conscience_, p. 239, l. 8874 (ed. Morris, Philol. Soc.).

Even Mr Tennyson makes believe that Everard Hall wrote his _Morte d'

Arthur_, and some Leonard his _Golden Year_. On the other hand, the existence of the two Sloane MSS. is more consistent with Russell's own statement (if it is his own, and not his adapter's in the Harleian MS.) that he did not write his Boke himself, but only touched up another man's. Desiring to let every reader judge for himself on this point, I shall try to print in a separate text[7], for convenience of comparison, the Sloane MS. 1315, which differs most from Russell, and which the Keeper of the MSS. at the British Museum considers rather earlier (ab. 1440-50 A.D.) than the MS. of Russell (ab. 1460-70 A.D.), while of the earliest of the three, Sloane MS. 2027 (ab. 1430-40 A.D.), the nearer to Russell in phraseology, I shall give a collation of all important variations. If any reader of the present text compares the Sloanes with it, he will find the subject matter of all three alike, except in these particulars:

Sloane 1315.

--Sloane 2027.

Omits lines 1-4 of Russell.

--Contains these lines.

Inserts after l. 48 of R. a pa.s.sage about behaviour which it nearly repeats, where Russell puts it, at l. 276, _Symple Condicions_.