A Statute Book and Lancastrian Mirror for Princes - The Yale Law School Manuscript of the Nova...

7/28/2019 A Statute Book and Lancastrian Mirror for Princes - The Yale Law School Manuscript of the Nova Statuta Angliae

1/55

A Statute Book and Lancastrian Mirror for Princes: The Yale Law

School Manuscript of the Nova statuta Angliae

Rosemarie McGerr

Textual Cultures: Texts, Contexts, Interpretation, Volume 1, Number

2, Autumn 2006, pp. 6-59 (Article)

Published by Indiana University Press

DOI: 10.1353/txc.0.0039

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by UNIFAL-Uniersidade Federal de Alfenas at 10/31/12 8:00PM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/txc/summary/v001/1.2.mcgerr.html
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/txc/summary/v001/1.2.mcgerr.htmlhttp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/txc/summary/v001/1.2.mcgerr.html


2/55

A Statute Book and LancastrianMirror for Princes

The Yale Law School Manuscript of the

Nova statuta Angliae

Rosemarie McGerr

For many years, the codex Yale Law School, GoldmanLibrary MS G. St. 11.1 has attracted critical attention for its deluxe decora-

tion and the suggestion that the copy of theNova statuta Angliae it contains

was made as a wedding gift from Henry VI of England for his bride, Margaret

of Anjou.1 A deeper appreciation of this manuscripts significance becomes

possible, however, when we recognize its unique interweaving of the legal,

political, and iconographic discourses of its time. By examining this manu-

script as a cultural artifact, not just in terms of the production of legal

manuscripts in England during the second half of the fifteenth century, but

also in terms of fifteenth-century English political history and late medieval

iconographic traditions, I would like to offer a new reading of the manuscript

that reassesses the significance of its form and content, as well as its connec-tions with Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou. My analysis explores the manu-

scripts links to Lancastrian polemic, specifically Margarets leadership of a

campaign between 1453 and 1471 to support the legitimacy of the Lan-

castrian royal line, in order to maintain her husbands claim to the English

throne and her sons claim as heir apparent. If we consider the Yale manu-

1. I want to thank Harvey R. Hull, Rare Book Librarian at Yale Law Schools Lillian

Goldman Library, for his assistance in obtaining images of MS G. St. 11. 1 and

permission to reproduce them. I also want to thank the Bodleian Library, the Brit-

ish Library, and the Philadelphia Free Library for permission to reproduce images

of manuscripts in their collections.


3/55

A Statute Book and Lancastrian Mirror for Princes | 7

script in its cultural context, we can see that there are important parallels be-

tween this copy of theNova statuta Angliae and the written work of one of

Margarets most important allies in supporting the Lancastrian cause, Sir

John Fortescue, Henry VIs chief justice and later chancellor-in-exile. TheYaleNova statutas links with Fortescues De laudibus legum Angliae suggest

that this manuscript was most likely made as a gift for Henry and Margarets

son, Edward of Lancaster, as a symbol of his role as rightful heir to the English

throne. Thanks to the visual and verbal traditions into which it sets the

Nova statuta, the Yale Law School manuscript transforms a record of English

statutes into a mirror for princes that comments on Englands mid-fifteenth-

century political crisis from the Lancastrian perspective.

In its 389 chartae, Yale Law School, Goldman Library MS G. St. 11.1

contains several legal texts: a Latin treatise on the rules governing sessions

of Parliament (Modus tenendi Parliamentum), a Latin treatise on the duties

of the seneschal of England (Tractatus de senescalsia Angliae), and theNova

statuta Angliae, a record in Law French of the statutes of England beginning

in 1327 with the reign of Edward III, along with an alphabetical index to

the statutes.2 The manuscript offers several forms of assistance to the reader

in finding and interpreting this large quantity of information about English

law. The index that precedes theNova statuta text proper allows the reader

to find statutes according to topic. Large historiated initials depicting theEnglish kings from Edward III through Edward IV appear with full border

decoration to help the reader locate the beginning of statutes passed during

each monarchs reign. Titles at the top of the chartae in the Nova statuta

identify the reigning king for that section, and small gold initials mark the

beginning of the statutes for each regnal year. Alternating blue and red

paragraph marks appear for the beginning of each statute. The manuscript

does not, however, contain explicit indication of when or for whom it was

made. Coats of arms appear as part of the border decoration on mostchartae with historiated initials (cc. 55r, 139r, 198r, 261r, and 358r). Plate

1 shows the beginning of the first set of statutes, with the initial depicting

Edward III and corner medallions housing the arms of Henry VI and

Margaret of Anjou in the top border and the arms of the Elyot and

Delamere families in the bottom border. Unfortunately, the presence of the

arms of the last two families here and the subsequent appearance of the

Elyot arms on cc. 139r, 198r, 261r, and 358r do not provide evidence of the

origins of this manuscript, since the Elyot and Delamere arms were addedto the manuscript over earlier decoration when the book became the prop-

2. See the Appendix and Plates 17.


4/55

8 | Rosemarie McGerr

erty of Sir Richard Elyot and Lady Alice Delamere.3 While the presence of

Henry and Margarets arms does not of itself indicate that the manuscript

was made for them, the inclusion and survival of their arms suggest the

manuscripts early association with supporters of the Lancastrian royal line,as does the codexs inclusion of the tract on the seneschal of England, a

document supporting the Lancastrian claim that, after the king, the sene-

schal had the power to supervise and regulate the whole realm of England,

including presiding over trials in the House of Lords.4

There has been little consensus among scholars who have commented

on the origins, contents, or significance of Goldman Library MS G. St.

11.1. In 1975, art historian Jane Hayward argued that the book was a wed-

ding gift from Henry to Margaret in 1445, noting the manuscripts luxuri-

ous decoration and appearance of Henrys and Margarets coats of arms in

border decorations and suggesting that the statutes from after 1444 in the

codex are additions that Margaret herself commissioned until the king of

France paid the ransom to Edward IV that allowed her to return to France.5

While a book about English law might well be a symbolic gift for a new

queen from abroad, other evidence offered by MS G. St. 11.1 makes it un-

likely that the codex was made as Henrys wedding gift to his bride. Despite

its elaborate execution, the manuscript does not contain any inscription or

presentation miniature linking it to the royal wedding or a gift presenta-

3. The earliest inscription in the manuscript verifies its ownership by the Elyot fam-

ily in the sixteenth century. An inscription on c. 1r indicates that George Freville

received the book as a gift from Dame Margaret Elyot and identifies her as the

widow of Sir Richard Elyot. Historical records indicate, however, that the refer-

ence to Sir Richard as Dame Margarets husband is a mistake. Sir Richards first

wife was Lady Alice Delamere, and the arms that appear on c. 55r suggest that

they owned the manuscript before it came into the possession of Margaret Elyot.

It was Sir Thomas Elyot, the son of Richard Elyot and Alice Delamere, who mar-

ried Lady Margaret Abarough (or Barrow). When Sir Richard died in 1522, he

left his Latin and French books to Sir Thomas and his English books to his daugh-

ter, Margery. When Sir Thomas died in 1546, he had no children and left instruc-

tions for his wife, Margaret, to sell his books and donate the proceeds to support

poor students. On Sir Richard Elyot and Sir Thomas Elyot, see entries by Richard

Schoeck and Stanford Lehmberg in Matthew and Harrison 2004, ad voc.

4. See Taylor1987, 31416.

5. See Hayward 1975, 14243; Haywards comments accompany a plate of c. 358

in Goldman Library G. St. 11.1 in the catalogue for an exhibit of the manuscript

at the Cloisters Museum: New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. See also Hor-

wood 1874, 53; Sotheby Auction House 1933, 5657, lot 427 and accompany-

ing plate; and Faye and Bond 1962, 53, no. 20.


5/55


tion, which contrasts with the carefully planned ceremonies with which

the betrothal, wedding, and coronation were celebrated.6 Indeed, in this re-

gard the YaleNova statuta differs considerably from the one book scholars

agree Margaret did receive as a wedding presenta collection of Frenchnarratives and treatises on chivalry and heraldry given to her by Sir John

Talbot, the first earl of Shrewsbury, with a dedicatory poem, inscription,

and miniature depicting the presentation of the manuscript.7 Haywards in-

terpretation also failed to account for other evidence that the manuscript

provides: for example, the statutes passed after 1445supposedly added by

Margaret until her final departure from England in 1476actually stop at

14671468, while she was in exile with her son and other Lancastrian loy-

alists in France; and a later addition to the manuscript presents statutes

passed after her death in 1482.8 Basing her analysis on the illustration de-

picting Edward IV on c. 358r (Plate 2), Hayward also contended that the

manuscripts historiated initials are unique because they portray the English

kings as sovereign givers of law. Though the Edward IV initial might sup-

port this reading of the kings legal power, the manuscript as a whole does

not; for this initial differs from the other five historiated initials in the

manuscript. Ironically, instead of offering a unique portrayal of sovereign

power, this depiction of Edward IV resembles much more the visual repre-

sentation of kings in other copies of theNova statuta than the other illus-trations of kings in the Yale Law School manuscript.

Since Hayward, other scholars have offered alternative interpretations

of the manuscripts origins and significance. In 1978, art historians Walter

Cahn and James Marrow dated the early parts of the manuscript to around

1460, fifteen years after Margarets marriage to Henry.9 Though noting the

appearance of Henrys and Margarets arms, Cahn and Marrow did not link

the presence of these arms with any royal commission or ownership of the

manuscript. Cahn and Marrow also parted from the assessment by Haywardin arguing that the manuscripts series of historiated initials is similar to il-

lustrations in other English statute books. While Cahn and Marrow re-

vealed some of the links between the YaleNova statuta and other copies of

the text, their description masked important distinguishing features among

the manuscripts, as well as possible connections between this manuscripts

6. See, for example, the account in Maurer2003, 1723.

7. This codex is now London, British Library, MS Royal 15 E VI. See Mandach

1974a and 1974b; and Bossy 1998.

8. See, for example, Laynesmith 2004, 17073, and Maurer2003, 2038.

9. The description of the manuscript appears in Cahn and Marrow 1978, 24041,

a special topic volume of the Yale University Library Gazette.


6/55


illustrations and other medieval iconographic traditions. Differing state-

ments about the manuscripts dating and illustrations have continued to

appear. In his 1985 catalogue, legal historian John Hamilton Baker (1985

1990, 1: 7374) dated the YaleNova statuta to the 1450s, with later addi-tions, and gave a full account of the manuscripts post-medieval prove-

nance; but he erroneously described this copy of the Nova statuta as

containing six miniatures of kings in Parliament. The most extensive work

on this manuscript thus far, however, has been by art historian Kathleen

Scott. Over the course of several publications, she has detailed associations

between the YaleNova statuta manuscriptand a group of statutes manu-

scripts produced by artists who worked in London from the 1450s through

the 1480s and developed a standardized layout for the text, illustration, and

decoration of many of these statute books during the 1470s.10

As Scotts work shows, one of the scribes and two of the artists who

made the YaleNova statuta also worked on at least eleven other copies of

the same text. Nevertheless, it is precisely because MS G. St. 11.1 was

made by these same scribes and artists that the Yale manuscripts differ-

ences from the other copies of the Nova statuta become significant, for

these differences provide clues about the purpose for which this codex was

made. In addition, although all of the assessments of MS G. St. 11.1 pub-

lished after Haywards analysis avoid discussing the manuscripts associa-tion with Henry VI or Margaret of Anjou, I believe that a link between

Margaret and this manuscript deserves reexamination. While nothing in

MS G. St. 11.1 indicates that it was a wedding gift from Henry to Margaret,

a close connection with Margaret and her circle does explain the manu-

scripts unique features. A detailed examination of the manuscripts illus-

trations and border decoration as a frame for the legal texts it contains

shows that the manuscript does make a political statement through its rep-

resentation of English laws and kings; but the statement is one that paral-lels Lancastrian discourse of the period from 1453 through 1471 and takes a

form particularly well suited to Margaret of Anjou.

Margaret began to take an active role in measures to support Henry VIs

authority during his incapacity from August 1453 until December 1454.11 A

major factor in the queens emergence as the leader in defense of the Lan-

castrian cause at this time was the birth of her son, Edward of Lancaster, in

10. See Scott 1980a; 1980b, 4549 and 6668 (respectively Additions to the

Oeuvre of the English Border Artist: theNova statuta, and Appendix B); 1989,

3234; and 1996, 2: 300, 34556.

11. See Gross 1996, 4656; Watts 1996, 30562; Maurer 2003, 67111; Layne-

smith 2004, 11 and 14043; and Lee 1986.


7/55


October 1453, both because the princes security depended on the security of

his father and because Margarets construction of her role as mother of

Henrys heir was one of the few options she had for exercising authority on

behalf of her husband (Laynesmith 2004, 16062). After Parliament re-jected her appeal to be appointed as regent for Henry, Margaret and her allies

sought other means to protect the interests of her husband and son against

erosion by the Yorkist party. One of these means was textual.

Lancastrian polemicists used several types of texts to defend the sanctity

of the Lancastrian claim to the throne, in part to respond to Yorkist propa-

ganda and in part to assure those internal to the regime of the validity of

their cause (Gross 1996, 36). In addition to treatises on royal succession

and satirical attacks on Yorkist claims against Henry VI, Lancastrian writ-

ers composed works in the mirror for princes tradition that associate both

Henry and Prince Edward with ideals of kingship. One such mirror for

princes, this one addressed to Henry VI, is Knyghthode and Bataile, an English

verse translation of Vegetiuss De re militari, thought to have been commis-

sioned between 1457 and 1460 by John, Viscount Beaumont, chief steward

of Prince Edwards lands.12 The poems narrator compares the king to

Goddes sone (v. 17) and refers to the rebels as those who fordoon

Goddes forbode (act counter to Gods prohibition [v. 29]). The poem goes

on to describe obedience to Gods law as knighthoods first ideal, to remindreaders that all earthly lords are subservient to Gods authority, and to as-

cribe disobedience, envy, and discord to Satan (vv. 13143).13 As we will

see, this focus on the importance of upholding the law can also be found in

the mirrors for princes addressed to Prince Edward by John Fortescue and

George Ashby, keeper of the queens privy seal. Ashbys On the Active Pol-

icy of a Prince and Fortescues De laudibus legum Angliae offer the prince in-

struction but also defend Henry VIs right to rule by presenting kings as the

12. Dyboski and Arend 1935. This translation has sometimes been attributed to

Robert Parker: see Bowers 2002, 355. On Viscount Beaumont, see also Layne-

smith 2004, 15152.

13. Along the same lines, the anonymous Lancastrian tract Somnium vigilantis, usually

dated to 1459, repeatedly describes York and his supporters as undermining the

most fundamental laws securing the order of the realm. Some scholars have sug-

gested that Fortescue had a hand in composing this text. See, for example,

McCulloch andJones 1983, 133; Lander1961, 120; and Gross 1996, 5859.

See Gilson 1911 for the text of the Somnium vigilantis.


8/55


earthly representatives of universal justice and the divine order.14 For

Margaret and the Lancastrian loyalists, educating the prince and defending

the king became complementary parts of the same process.

It is in this temporal and political context that I believe we should readthe Yale Law School manuscript of the Nova statuta Angliae and its rela-

tionship to other copies of this text. As Kathleen Scott argues, the Yale

manuscript appears to be one of the Nova statuta manuscripts that were

made in stages, so that it is not useful or even accurate to date a manu-

script on the basis of the last occurring statute; a series of dates would be

more appropriate, based on a close study of the stints of scribes and illumi-

nators (1980b, 46n3). To Scotts list of pertinent forms of evidence for

dating, I would add the evidence provided by the relationship of the manu-

scripts contents to historical, literary, and artistic developments. This evi-

dence suggests that work on all but the last gathering of the Yale Nova

statuta most probably began in the late 1450s and continued under the

same basic plan until shortly after 1468. After this point, the changes in the

manuscripts format suggest a later time and new owner.

As the Appendix shows, the manuscript contains the work of three

scribes and three illustrators. Scribe A, whose work appears in Plate 1, copied

the bulk of the text in this manuscript, from cc. 2r through 344v. Since this

portion of the manuscript ends with the statutes from 1450 and 1451, Scott(1996, 2: 346) dates this portion of the manuscript to ca. 1452. Neverthe-

less, this date is more of a terminus a quo for the completion of Scribe As

work period. Scott offers no evidence that Scribe A could not have started

his transcription later in the 1450s. This principal copyists extensive work

in the manuscript links the earlier texts in the manuscript to the Nova

statuta text and suggests a plan for the original parts of the codex. When the

gatherings copied by this first scribe were assembled, they created a pattern

in which blank chartae appear before the beginning of each of the majorunits of text in the manuscript, perhaps as space where large illustrations,

gift inscriptions, or other prefatory materials could be added before final

preparation of the codex for presentation.

Scribe B, whose work appears in Plate 2, began copying immediately

below Scribe As work on c. 344v and continued through c. 381v, where his

work stops during the statutes for 14671468. Scott therefore dates the por-

14. Gross 1996 37. See Bateson [1899] 1965, 1241; and Chrimes 1942. English

texts from earlier in the century also depicted the kings rule in parallel with Gods

justice (see Osberg 1986). On the medieval conception of the king as lex animata,

see Kantorowicz [1957] 1997, 12742; and Mayali 1988.


9/55


tion of the manuscript copied by this scribe to ca. 1470.15 Since Scribe Bs

work concludes with the end of a gathering (but in mid-sentence), it is not

clear whether he continued his transcription in a new gathering that has

been lost or ended his work there. What is clear, however, is that, sinceScribe B began copying in the middle of the charta where Scribe A

stopped, the scribes seem to have worked sequentially, rather than dividing

the text by gatherings or quires in order to work concurrently.

As the plates show, the change from Scribe A to Scribe B does not alter

the basic format of the text, which remains constant across the work of

these two scribes both in terms of page layout and types of decoration. This

continuity suggests that both of these scribes and the artists working on the

manuscript through c. 381r were guided by a unified plan, however much

time elapsed in the process. Three different illustrators painted the scenes

in the manuscripts historiated initials: Illustrator A painted the initial for

Edward III on c. 55r, as well as the initial depicting Richard II on c. 139r

(Plate 3), and Illustrator B painted the initial depicting Henry IV on c.

198r (Plate 4), as well as those of Henry V on c. 235v (Plate 5) and of

Henry VI on c. 261r (Plate 6).16 Scott (1996, 2: 300, 346) maintains that Il-

lustrators A and B may have been influenced or trained by the same master

and that they should, for stylistic reasons, be considered as belonging to the

same shop, if they in fact did not actually collaborate. Since these firsttwo illustrators worked on illuminations contained in Scribe As stint, they

may have had a professional association with him. In comparison with the

border decoration that appears with the historiated initials, which repre-

sents the work of several different artists and shows more variation, the use

of only two artists for the first five royal portraits and their demonstrated

continuity suggest that the sequence of historiated initials was a high prior-

ity for the person commissioning the manuscript. As a result, we should

note the addition of a third illustrator for the final initial depicting EdwardIV (Plate 2). This initial presents a change in style and quality, as well as in

iconographic representation of the king. This third illustrator seems to

have been commissioned to paint the portrait for the only monarch whose

reign began in Scribe Bs copying stint. If the manuscript was indeed copied

in two stages, over ten years time could have lapsed between the work of Il-

lustrator C and that of the earlier artists.

15. Scott 1996, 2: 346. Scribe Bs hand is similar to that of Scribe A in many re-

spects, which might indicate a professional or educational link between them, just

as there seem to be associations among the artists who worked on the historiated

initials and borders.

16. See Scott 1980b, 46; and Scott 1996, 2: 346.


10/55


This scenario fits with the political events of this period. Illustrator Cs

work must date from no earlier than 1461, the date of Edward IVs deposi-

tion of Henry VI, and possibly as late as the early 1470s, a time when the

Lancastrians would have had very limited access to London scribes and art-ists who could have completed the YaleNova statuta, even though several

exiled Lancastrian loyalistsincluding Ashby and Fortescuecompleted

or revised works defending the Lancastrian claim to the throne for circula-

tion in England. Lancastrian sympathizers remaining in England after 1461

were also unlikely to find many artists willing to run the risk of working on

a manuscript with Lancastrian associations, especially after Edward IV

began to torture and execute individuals convicted of sympathizing or hav-

ing contact with members of the Lancastrian party in the mid-1460s.17

Nevertheless, secret communication did take place, and the appearance

of Illustrator Cs work in the portion of the manuscript copied by Scribe B

suggests that the third illustrator worked under the same basic plan as the

other artists working on the text up through c. 381. We should therefore

not necessarily ascribe the changes in artistic style and iconography in the

depiction of Edward IV to a change in the plan or the motivation govern-

ing the manuscripts production as much as to a change of artist who seems

to have been involved in painting standardized initials in other copies of

theNova statuta and who may not have been given access to the earlierparts of the Yale manuscript that contain the other royal portraits and

Margarets coat of arms.

If Scott (1980b, 46n8) is correct in suggesting that seven different bor-

der artists might have worked on the manuscript, it is quite likely that the

manuscript gatherings containing the opening of a new reign were sepa-

rated from the rest of the manuscript for this work, at least temporarily.

Consequently the overall continuity of format through c. 381 must have

been overseen by the patron or a trusted agent. This supervisor of themanuscripts production took great care, at least up through this point, to

coordinate its parts, despite the number of people involved and the time

the copying and decoration must have taken. Again, these factors parallel

the political strategy of Margaret and her circle. Even after Henry VIs depo-

sition, continuity of form was an important tool for the Lancastrian party:

The Lancastrian advisers continued to protect their cause by working

17. Gross 1996, 39. For example, the capture of agents bearing letters from the Lan-

castrians in France in 1468 led to arrests, imprisonments, torture, and executions

(see Kekewich et al. 1995, 8892).


11/55


within patterns set while Henry was still king. After all, their position

rested on the claim that that was still his rightful status (Gross 1996, 38).

Despite changes in its scribes and illustrators, the continuity we can see

across the majority of the manuscript breaks down significantly in the finalgathering (cc. 382r-389v), where we find the work of Scribe C (statutes for

14821484). Since the text of this scribes transcription is incomplete both in

its beginning and ending, this quire may have been meant for a different copy

of the statutes. Scribe C also employs a less formal script and a different for-

mat. Instead of the careful ruling for 38 lines of text in the chartae of the gath-

erings completed by Scribes A and B, the ruling in the last quire is darker and

the number of lines of text per charta varies. Instead of preparation for a large

initial like the historiated ones earlier in the manuscript, space has been left

for a smaller initial to open the statues passed under Richard III on c. 386r,

with even smaller spaces left for subsequent initials (Plate 7). Nevertheless,

initials and paragraph markers were never added to the quire. The simpler

format followed in this section is similar to those of many other surviving

copies of theNova statuta Angliae. Some of the statutes less elaborate copies

contain only a pen-drawn initial opening each kings reign, while others have

a painted initial and even border decoration but no large historiated initial

for the beginning of a new kings reign.18 Some of the less elaborate copies use

painted decoration only for the most important parts of theNova statuta, suchas the opening of the text or the opening of the statutes under the monarch

reigning when the manuscript was made.19 The much later date of the

18. Copies with only pen-and-ink initials include MSS New York, Columbia Univer-

sity Rare Books and Manuscripts Library, Plimpton MS 273; London, Inner

Temple, MS 505; and Oslo, Martin Schyen Collection, MS 1355 (which con-

tains the statutes in Middle English from 1 Edward III to 23 Henry VI). Copies of

theNova statuta that have painted initials and border decoration, but no histori-

ated initials: Bodleian Library, Fr. c. 50 (contains the statutes from the end of 9

Henry V and start of 1 Henry VI); London, British Library, Lansdowne 470; and

Cambridge, Harvard Law School Library, MSS 10, 2930, 42, and 163.

19. Such seems to be the case with a copy of theNova statuta in Middle English that

uses a painted initial and border decoration for the opening of statutes passed

under Henry VI, but has only pen-drawn initials for the reigns of the other kings.

This manuscript was sold by Christie auction house on 16 November 2005 (sale

no. 7088). See the description and two plates in Christie Auction House 2005,

lot 19. Because this copy ends with the statutes for 20 Henry VI (14411442), it

may have been made shortly thereafter; but this may just represent the extent of

the English translation available to the copyist, since English versions appear to

have been unusual at this time.


12/55


statutes copied by Scribe C and the formatting differences between his gath-

ering and those that contain the earlier parts of the Yale manuscript all sug-

gest that Scribe Cs work was a later addition to the manuscript, undertaken

under a different set of guidelines and for a different patron.20

Scott has verified that Scribe B of the Yale Law School Nova statuta

worked on at least eleven copies of theNova statuta with differing styles, in-

cluding London, Inner Temple MS 505 (with pen-drawn initials only); Lon-

don, Lincolns Inn MS Hale 194 (with historiated initials and full borders);

and Philadelphia, Free Library, MS Carson LC 14/9.5, (with standardized his-

toriated initials and full borders [Plate 8]).21 She also contends that Illustrator

B in the Yale manuscript painted an historiated initial in MS Hale 194, as well

as two of the initials in the codex London, Corporation of London, Guildhall

MS Cartae Antiquae. In addition, she argues that the border artist who

worked on c. 358r in the Yale Law School manuscript also worked on five ad-

ditional copies of theNova statuta, including MS Hale 194 and MS Carson

LC 14/9.5, an artist whose work she dates between 1469 and 1483.22 While

these links demonstrate that the Yale manuscript has close ties with the group

of London scribes and artists who produced a large number ofNova statuta

manuscripts, among other texts, from the 1450s through the 1480s, the links

also allow us to assess the features that make the Yale manuscript unique.

For example, Haywards judgment that the YaleNova statuta was a wed-ding present for Margaret was built primarily on the appearance of Henrys

and Margarets arms in the border decoration on the first three chartae with

historiated initials: 55r, 139r, and 198r (Plates 1, 3, and 4). The fact that

both Henrys and Margarets coats of arms appear in the decoration on

three chartae of the Yale manuscript does suggest a connection with them,

though not necessarily one of ownership. While the appearance of arms in

a medieval manuscript is often considered evidence of ownership, royal

arms may have been included in some manuscripts to suggest support forthe monarchy by a manuscript patron or to record the arms used by a spe-

cific monarch in a text with an historical or legal subject. Royal arms ap-

pear in at least five other manuscript copies of theNova statuta, including

20. Though the simpler formats were predominant before the 1470s, the use of the

simpler format in the addition to the Yale manuscript with statutes from the

1480s shows that this format persisted as an option, even after the ornate style be-

came more common.

21. See Scott 1980b, 48 and 67, where she cites the earlier work of N. R. Ker (1969

2002, 1: 1819, 87, 140, and 190), and unpublished work by J. J. Griffiths.

22. Scott 1980b, 46 and 67; 1996, 2: 346; and, for images from London, Corporation

of London, Guildhall, Cartae Antiquae, see again Scott 1996, 1: plates 48183.


13/55


MS Hale 194.23 Rather than indicating that all of these copies were com-

missioned for the king, this recurrence of royal arms could mean that in-

cluding royal coats of arms became a convention in statutes manuscripts.

Two of the copies that contain royal arms (San Marino, Huntington Li-brary MS HM 19920; and Cambridge, St. Johns College MS A. 7) coordi-

nate the arms depicted with the particular king portrayed on the charta.

This pattern does not appear in the YaleNova statuta, however, which uses

the arms of Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou on the chartae that contain

the portraits of Edward III, Richard II, and Henry IV, but not on the charta

portraying Henry VI, where one might expect to see them. Some of the

Nova statuta manuscripts containing royal arms also include the coats of

arms of members of the nobility who commissioned or owned the manu-

scripts.24 Often, however, coats of arms were painted in after original pro-

duction for later owners, either painted over earlier parts of the border

decoration or added in the margins, as is the case of the Elyot and Delamere

arms in the YaleNova statuta, which appear to be painted over earlier dec-

oration at the bottom of c. 55r.25 The Elyot coat of arms also appears to be

added over border decoration in the center of the bottom margin on several

chartae of the Yale manuscript (Plates 2, 3, 4, and 6). Indeed, the center of

the bottom margin seems to have become a common site for owners arms

23. Other copies containing royal arms include London, Public Records Office, E

164/11; Oxford, St. Johns College, MS 257; Cambridge, St. Johns College, MS

A. 7; and San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 19920. On Cambridge, St. Johns

College, MS A. 7, see Bakerand Ringrose 1996.

24. Lincolns Inn, Hale 194 uses the medallion next to the historiated initial for royal

arms and the medallion on the right and the bottom margin for the arms of John

Neville, Lord Montagu, who was elevated by Edward IV to baron in 1463 and mar-

quess in 1470, but died fighting for the Lancastrians in 1471. Huntington Library,

HM 19920 has royal arms in the corner opposite its historiated initials, with arms

of other families added to early decoration and then incorporated on later chartae.

See Scott 1989, 2021 and 1980b, 58, for discussions of owners and arms.

25. If other families coats of arms appear underneath the Elyot and Delamere coats of

arms on c. 55r, this might indicate that one of these families had the manuscript

made and decided to honor Henry and Margaret by including theirs. On the other

hand, Henrys and Margarets arms may have originally appeared in the bottom

roundels as well as the top ones. Yet a third option is that acanthus leaf decora-

tionrather than other coats of armsmay have appeared in the lower roundels

of the Yale manuscript in the original decoration: such is the case with the roun-

dels in the London Guildhall copy and in London, British Library, Yates Thomp-

son 48 (Plate 9).


14/55


inNova statuta manuscripts, whether incorporated into the original design

of the page or added after initial production.26

What distinguishes the Yale manuscript from other copies of theNova

statuta with royal arms is the way that it pairs a kings arms with his queens,which does not seem to occur in other copies of this text. Though this pair-

ing of Henry VIs and Margaret of Anjous arms need not mean the manu-

script was a wedding gift, the pairing is clear evidence that the manuscript

celebrates both of them, not just Henry. A similar use of coats of arms to

celebrate marital alliances can be found in another copy of theNova statuta,

one made for Sir Thomas Fitzwilliam of Mablethorpe, Lincolnshire: each of

the six large initials that mark the opening of the royal reigns contains the

arms of the Fitzwilliam family impaled with those of a family with whom the

Fitzwilliam men married, so that the series as a whole records the marriages

of six generations of Fitzwilliam men ending with that of Sir Thomas him-

self.27 The iconography in the FitzwilliamNova statuta thus intertwines that

familys history with the countrys history, most likely to document the fam-

ilys long-standing social prominence. The coats of arms originally in the

Yale Law School manuscript only celebrate one marriage, however, that of

Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou; but, through the repeated appearance of

their arms, the marriage could be read as a theme in the manuscriptnot as

an event, but as the union that produced a legitimate heir, Edward of Lan-caster, who should rightfully continue the line of the first five kings depicted

in the manuscript by inheriting the throne of England from Henry VI. 28

Prince Edwards claim as heir was one that indeed needed demonstra-

tions of support; even before his birth, the Yorkists spread rumors denying

his legitimacy.29 With Henry VIs illness often preventing him from public

celebrations of the young prince as heir apparent or consistent participa-

tion in plans for Edwards education, Margaret took on an active role in

26. Plate 8 shows an example (c. 245r) from Philadelphia, Free Library, Carson LC

14/9.5. Other copies with coats of arms centered in the bottom margin include

the London Guildhall copy and MS Hale 194.

27. For details of this section of the first Dyson Perrins Collection Sale (9 Dec. 1958),

see Sotheby Auction House 1958, lot. 23.

28. Though the absence of Henrys and Margarets arms after the third royal portrait

may just reflect design changes made by some of the border artists, the use of roun-

dels with royal arms in the borders for the reigns of the first three kings suggests

either a greater measure of coordination during work on borders in the earlier por-

tion of the manuscript or greater circumspection about asking border artists to in-

clude Margarets arms as political tensions grew.

29. See Prendergast 2002.


15/55


protecting her sons rights and preparing him to take on the responsibilities

of kingship. Margaret may also have seen parallels between her husbands

condition and the periods of mental illness suffered by his maternal grand-

father, Charles VI of France, as well as a parallel between her situation andthat of Charless queen, Isabelle of Bavaria.30 To help Queen Isabelle edu-

cate her oldest son during Charles VIs incapacity, John of Burgundy en-

gaged Christine de Pizan to make a French translation of Vegetiuss De re

militari, the same text that would be translated into English verse in the late

1450s as Knyghthode and Bataile.31 Margaret of Anjou owned a copy of

Christines Livre des fais darmes et de chevalerie, in the anthology she had re-

ceived as a wedding present from Sir John Talbot.32 While Talbot may

30. It was Isabelle who in 1420 helped arrange the treaty whereby her daughter

Katherine married Henry V of England and Henry VI was crowned king of France

after the death of Charles VI. Margaret would also have been familiar with the ac-

counts of Charles VIs illness and Isabelles actions on behalf of her children be-

cause of the important role played at that time and subsequently by Margarets

grandmother, Yolande of Aragon, duchess of Anjou, with whom Margaret lived for

eight years as a child. Yolande arranged for the engagement of her daughter Marie

to Isabelles younger son, Charles, who came to live at the court of Anjou. After his

father and older brothers died, Charles claimed the throne of France, leading to the

round of fighting with the English that Margarets marriage to Henry VI was sup-

posed to resolve. See Maurer2003, 23;Jansen 2002, 37;and Vale1974.

31. Since the original French text of Christines treatise has not been published since

1488, Charity Cannon Willards critical edition of this text is much anticipated. I

quote from Willard 1999. See also Teague 1991; and Forhan 2002, 3.

32. We can, in fact, surmise that Margaret knew Christines Livre de la cit des dames,Le

Livredes fais et bonnes meurs du sage roi Charles V, and Le Livre du corps de policie, as

well as Le Livre des fais darmes et de chevalerie. Helen Maurer (2003, 59, 151) main-

tains that Margaret followed Christines ideal of queenship in seeking reconciliation

between the king and his opponents before 1459, while Frances Teague (1991, 31)

suggests that Margaret followed Christines ideal of kingship in rallying the Lancas-

trian forces against Henrys foes. In addition to owning the anthologized copy ofLe

Livre des fais darmes, Margaret probably had access to some of Christines other

works. Margarets family had close relationships with many of Christines original

patrons and was herself close friends with Alice Chaucer, Duchess of Suffolk, who

owned a copy of Christines Livre de la cit des dames. Among the members of the

French royal and ducal families who owned at least one of Christines works between

1405 and 1425 are Charles VI, Charles VII, Isabelle of Bavaria (a collection of thirty

texts), Louis of Guyenne, Louis of Orlans, Philip of Burgundy, Marguerite of Bur-

gundy, John of Berry, and Marie of Berry. John of Burgundy, Philips son, owned

mmmm


16/55


have intendedas Bossy suggests (1998, 246)the anthology to be a re-

source for educating a royal heir, Christines treatise provided Margaret

with guidance on ideals of kingly conduct. From the title of Christines

work and her invocation of Minerva, to her emphasis on the contributionsof wisdom and justice to chivalric ideals, we see that Christine conceives of

chivalry as more than just the use of arms (Willard 1999, 1213). Al-

though Christine repeats her source in recommending the ancient practice

of military education for noble sons at age fourteen, her treatise suggests

that the noble prince who will lead a country should be educated in chival-

ric conduct and law, which could begin even earlier. Especially in the

opening passages, her treatise discusses the kings responsibility to pursue

justice through divine and earthly law.33 She argues further that only sover-

eign princes have the legal authority to undertake wars or battles (15), an

argument that the Lancastrians would also make when they condemned

York and his followers for taking up arms against Henry VI. Christines

treatise may well have offered the textual matrix for Margarets encourage-

ment of her own son to study English law; but for this Prince Edward would

need another book, a copy of theNova statuta Angliae.

Decorated with the coats of arms of both of Edward of Lancasters par-

ents, offering portraits of his royal English forebears and including the in-

troductory treatises and index to the statutes, Goldman Library MS G. St.11.1 would have been an appropriate copy of the Nova statuta for the

prince. External evidence also suggests that members of Margarets circle

expected that Prince Edward would have access to a copy of the Nova

statuta. The mirrors for princes composed for Edward by Ashby and Fortes-

cue parallel Christines text in highlighting the important link between

good kingship and just laws. In his On the Active Policy of a Prince Ashby re-

peatedly advises Prince Edward to implement the statutes authorized by the

noble kings who preceded him (vv. 52023, 540, 546).

33. See Forhan 2002, 11032; Teague 1991, 28. Christine cites biblical authority to

support her argument that wars and battles waged for a just cause are but the

proper execution of justice, to bestow right where it belongs. Divine law grants

this, as do laws drawn up by people to repress the arrogant and evildoers

(Willard 1999, 14).

seven volumes of Christines works (see McGrady 1998). On Jean de Berrys role as

one of Christines chief patrons, see Meiss 1967, 1: 50, and 2: figures 83336. On

Alice Chaucers ownership of a copy of the Livre de la cit des dames, see Meale

1996.


17/55


Fortescues De laudibus legum Angliae addresses even more directly the

princes need to learn about the laws of God and the laws of the kingdom.

In the opening chapters of his treatise, Fortescue cites classical and biblical

sources to argue that the prince should add the study of law to his prepara-tion for kingship:

Regis namque officium pugnare est bella populi sui, et eos rectissime iudicare,

ut in primo Regum, viijo capitulo, clarissime tu doceris. Quare ut ar-

morum utinam et legum studiis simili zelo te deditum contemplarer, cum

ut armis bella, ita legibus iudicia peragantur.

(For the office of a king is to fight the battles of his people and to judge them

rightfully, as you may very clearly learn in I Kings, chapter viii. For thatreason, I wish that I observed you to be devoted to the study of the laws

with the same zeal as you are to that of arms, since, as battles are deter-

mined by arms, so judgements are by laws.)

(De laudibus [Chrimes 1942, 25])

Fortescues text also stresses the divine authority behind earthly justice:

A Deo etiam sunt omnes leges edite, que ab omine promulgantur. [. . .]Ex quibus erudiris quod leges licet humanas addiscere leges sacras et edi-

ciones Dei, quo earum studia non vacant a dulcitudine consolcionis

sancte.

(Moreover, all laws that are promulgated by man are decreed by God.

[. . .] By this you are taught that to learn the laws, even though human

ones, is to learn laws that are sacred and decreed of God, the study of

which does not lack the blessing of divine encouragement.)

(De laudibus [Chrimes 1942, 89])

Like Christines treatise, Fortescues argues that a king is only able to fight

just wars if he governs his realm justly: Iusticia vero hec subiectum est

omnis regalis cure, quo sine illa rex iuste non iudicat nec recte pugnare

potest. Illa vero adepta perfecteque servata equissime peragitur omne offi-

cium regis (This justice, indeed, is the object of all royal administration,

because without it a king judges unjustly and is unable to fight rightfully.

But this justice attained and truly observed, the whole office of king is fairlydischarged [De laudibus 1213]). Finally, by citing Moses command in

Deuteronomy 17:1819that the king of Israel have a copy of the laws to

keep with him and read all the days of his lifethe chancellor recommends


18/55


that the prince have his own copy of the laws by which he will one day rule

(De laudibus 45), that is his own copy of theNova statuta Angliae.34

Though the version of Fortescues De laudibus legum Angliae that sur-

vives depicts the dialogue between chancellor and prince taking place dur-ing their exile in France between 1463 and 1471, this does not mean that

work on a copy of the Nova statuta for the prince had not begun before

this.35 Fortescues treatise indicates that he made an earlier contribution to

Edwards legal education, for the chancellor in the dialogue refers to having

written another Latin treatise on law, De natura legis naturae, for the prince

in the past (De laudibus 2627). Fortescue thus seems to have begun the

princes education in law at an earlier time, perhaps when he first accompa-

nied the queen and prince into refuge in Scotland, or even earlier when the

princes formal education was just beginning in 1460.36 Fortescue had been

one of the loyal administrators who, beginning in 1453, joined with Henry

34. In citing the command in Deuteronomy 17 that kings should have a personal

copy of the laws for daily study, Fortescues text parallels Book 4 of John of Salis-

burys Policraticus. For John of Salisburys text, see Keats-Rohan, 19931995, vv.

2797 and 287176; andNederman 1990, 36 and 41. Fortescues text goes beyond

the Policraticus, however, in depicting the laws the prince must know as the laws

of a particular kingdom, in addition to divine law.35. Fortescues treatise presents Prince Edward as an engaged and mature student:

Princeps ille mox ut factus est adultus [. . .] (This prince, as soon as he became

grown up [. . .]) (De laudibus [Chrimes 1942, 23]). Though the opening of this

section depicts the dialogue between Fortescue and the prince as taking place at an

unspecified time during their exile in France, which began in 1463 when the prince

was not quite ten years old, the representation of the prince as an adult suggests that

Fortescue completed his work towards the end of his exile, between 1468 and 1470,

when the prince was at least fifteen and could be presented as ready to assume the

role of regent for his father, as Charles VIs son had and as Parliament had originallyauthorized Edward to do, when he was of the age of discretion, in the appointment

of York as protector (Maurer2003, 122; Watts 1996, 309). By depicting the di-

alogue between chancellor and prince in the context of their exile from England,

Fortescue encourages his readers to understand the texts arguments about just

kingship as an indictment of Edward IV. This critique, along with the texts repre-

sentation of Prince Edward, suggests that one of the audiences targeted in this ver-

sion of the De laudibus was that of the educated members of English society, who

might be persuaded to assist the prince in restoring his father to the throne, as the

Lancastrians tried to do in 14701471. Fortescue may therefore have prepared anearlier version of the De laudibus for the prince and later revised it for public circu-

lation, as he seems to have done with several of his works.

36. Chrimes (1942, xcii-xciii) contends that the De natura could have been written at

any point after 1460. Gill (1971, 334) maintains that Fortescue composed the De

natura during exile in Scotland (between July 1460 and July 1463).


19/55


VIs supporters in Parliament to help Margaret use English law to protect

the rights of both her husband and son. Although Parliament appointed

the Duke of York as protector for Henry VI in 1454, the declaration speci-

fied that Prince Edward would remain heir apparent. Margaret seems tohave also worked in less direct ways to establish the princes authority as

Henry VIs heir. If Margaret took Christines treatise as a guide, finding

ways to link Prince Edward to the laws of England would serve that pur-

pose. Deprived of most means to help the king directly, Margaret high-

lighted on every possible public occasion and forum the laws of succession

by depicting Henrys son as next in the line of Lancastrian kings.37

Although any of the events highlighting the princes authority might

have been an appropriate context for a gift like the YaleNova statuta, Mar-

garets next move had particular relevance to Edwards need for such books.

In March 1460, the supervision of Prince Edwards education was officially

transferred from women to men.38 Although this transition traditionally

occurred when a noble son reached the age of seven, Margaret appears to

have found it useful to announce the beginning of the princes formal edu-

cation six months early, perhaps because of increased political tension.39

Given Margarets concerns over establishing her sons authority in the face

37. Though it had more symbolic than practical significance, since he was barely five

months old at the time, Edward of Lancaster was formally invested as prince of

Wales in March 1454. In December 1454, when York attempted to continue his

control over the government after the end of his protectorate, Margaret suc-

ceeded in taking control of the princes affairs and resources through the appoint-

ment of his officers (Maurer2003, 13435; Laynesmith 2004, 15152; Watts

1996, 337). In another attempt to shape public perception of the prince, the

queen encouraged her young sons participation in public events that would high-

light his role as heir apparent: for example, Margaret and Prince Edward were wel-

comed to Coventry in 1456 with public pageants that served to construct the

new prince as a potential exemplar of kingship in order to emphasize the poten-

tial and legitimacy of Lancastrian kingship (Laynesmith 2004, 140 and 143). In

December 1459, the Lancastrians again worked through Parliament to strengthen

legal support for Prince Edward as Henrys rightful heir: at the Coventry session of

Parliament, after the declaration of attainder against the Yorkist lords, sixty-six

peers of England swore life-long allegiance to King Henry and also loyalty to

Prince Edward, accepting his succession as heir to the throne and the succession

of his legal heirs (see Watts 1996, 353; Maurer2003, 173).

38. Maurer, 2003, 177; Laynesmith 2004, 14752; and Calendar18911916, 49:

567.

39. On the conventions of educating noble children in the late Middle Ages, see

Given-Wilson 1987, 3; and Orme 2001, 68.


20/55


of Yorkist challenges, she might also have commissioned the Yale Law

SchoolNova statuta as a gift to celebrate this transition in the princes edu-

cation, or for Prince Edwards knighting ceremony, which could have been

planned for October 1460, when he would reach the age of seven. No grandcelebration of the princes birthday took place that October, however, be-

cause in July Yorks forces captured the king, and Margaret took refuge with

the prince in Scotland. Instead of celebrating his sons seventh birthday in

October, the imprisoned Henry accepted an agreement that allowed him to

remain king only if he designated the Duke of York as royal heir and disin-

herited Prince Edward. Margaret responded by sending the Lancastrian

army in the livery of Prince Edward to meet Yorks forces, and the Lancas-

trians captured and executed York in December. After another Lancastrian

military victory in February 1461 brought his release, Henry VI celebrated

his reunion with his family by knighting his son.40 The Lancastrian celebra-

tion of their victory did not last long; for less than a month later Yorks son

Edward persuaded Parliament to declare him king. Henry, Margaret, and

their son first took refuge in Scotland; in July 1463 Margaret took Prince

Edward and a group of about fifty supportersincluding Fortescueinto

France, where they set up a Lancastrian court in exile, worked to find a way

to restore Henry VI to the throne of England, and prepared Edward of Lan-

caster to fulfill his role as Henrys heir.41

40. See Maurer2003, 19196. The ceremony must have been considerably less elab-

orate than Margaret and the Lancastrians would have preferred, however, since

any plans that may have been in the works for gifts and public spectacles had been

interrupted by eight months of political and military warfare. For descriptions of

some of the elaborate ceremonies that accompanied the knighting ritual for a me-

dieval prince, see Vale 2001, 13031, 21011.

41. In July 1465, the Yorkists captured Henry again and imprisoned him in the Tower

of London. In 1470, however, after a falling out between Edward IV and Richard

Neville, Earl of Warwick, Sir John Fortescue acted as Prince Edwards agent to ne-

gotiate a truce with Warwick and a marriage between the prince and Warwicks

daughter, Anne (Maurer2003, 207). Warwick then defeated Edward IVs army

in October 1470 and restored Henry VI to the throne. Prince Edward and the

queen arrived from France in March 1471; but Henrys restoration was not secure.

In April, the Yorkists defeated Warwick and recaptured Henry. On 4 May 1471,

Prince Edward was killed while leading the Lancastrian forces at the battle of

Tewksbury. Margaret was then captured and taken to London as prisoner on 21

May, and Henry was murdered in the Tower on that same night. Margaret re-

mained in English custody, however, since she was more valuable to Edward IV

alive than dead: after Margaret renounced all her claims in England and Edward

mmm


21/55


Since Sir John Fortescue became one of Margarets most trusted advisors

and one of the leading authors defending the Lancastrian royal line in the

textual war that paralleled the military battles with the Yorkists, it should

not be surprising to find parallels between a Lancastrian manuscript such asthe YaleNova statuta and the ideas put forth in Fortescues writings. Never-

theless, Margaret may have become familiar with copies of theNova statuta

through other members of the Lancastrian court working closely with her

in the 1450s: for example, three inscriptions in a Nova statuta manuscript

attest to its ownership by William Coote of Coningsby, Lincolnshire, who

served as the queens attorney general in Chancery in 1459.42 Margarets at-

tempts to use English law to defend her husband and son, her possession of

Christine de Pizans Faits darmes, and her probable knowledge of the com-

missioning of that text to educate a royal heir all suggest that she could well

have been responsible for including law in the princes studies and commis-

sioning a statute book for her son that would also serve as a mirror for

princes, highlighting the integral connection between law and good king-

ship. If such a book also presented Henry VI as an embodiment of good

kingship, as MS G. St. 11.1 does, this would certainly have served Marga-

rets purposes as well.

The Yale Law School manuscripts depiction of the kings of England from

Edward III to Edward IV both distinguishes this copy of the Nova statutaAngliae from all others and provides the strongest evidence for reading this

book as a document reflecting the political debates of the 1450s and 1460s,

rather than the 1440s. The iconography of the Yale manuscripts historiated

initials presents the English kings from Edward III through Henry VI in

terms of an ideal of just rulership and divine sanction. As we shall see, how-

ever, the depiction of Edward IV suggests that this single king differs from his

predecessors in his relationship to divine and human law. Ironically, of the

royal portraits included in this manuscript, it is the portrayal of Edward IV,enthroned at center and flanked by figures in ceremonial robes, that also ties

42. Coote first appears in the Calendar of the Patent Rolls as the kings servant with

an annuity for life granted in 1439, then as Justice of the Peace for Lincoln in

1448. Coote seems to have continued his service to the Lancastrian party until its

final defeat, sincelike FortescueCoote received a pardon from Edward IV in

1471. See Calendar18911916, 46: 291 and 495; 48: 579 and 591; 49: 104 and

507; and 51: 261. Cf. also Christie Auction House 2005, lot 19 .

received a ransom from Louis XI, she was escorted back to France in 1476. There

she was forced to relinquish her inheritance rights to Louis and lived in retire-

ment until her death in 1482 (Maurer2003, 208).


22/55


this manuscript to the standardization ofNova statuta manuscripts that Scott

has situated in the 1470s. As Marrow and Cahn noted, manyNova statuta

manuscripts feature an historiated initial depicting a king for the beginning

of each new reign. Scott has shown that many of these initials depict a kingenthroned at center and flanked by figures in ceremonial robes, who have

been described variously as members of court, members of Parliament, or

legal counselors.43 In some cases, these figures are depicted as members of the

clergy, while in other cases the figures appear to be secular lords or wear the

striped sleeves that would identify them as lawyers. As Hayward argued, this

representation of the monarch in a collection of statutes seems to highlight

the kings sovereignty as law-giver, as it centralizes the kingwho often

holds symbols of sovereignty like a scepterand marginalizes the other fig-

ures. Some copies feature this type of standardized depiction of the king

throughout, as does Philadelphia Free Library MS LC 14/9.5 (Plate 8), or for

most of their historiated initials.44 Like the Yale manuscript, however, in the

case of the reign of Edward IV some copies move from another format to the

standardized use.45 Several other manuscripts of theNova statuta have histo-

riated initials that vary from the standardized model slightly in their depic-

43. See Scott 1996, 2: 34536. Scott also sees a possible link between the group of

artists working on Nova statuta manuscripts and those who executed the codex

now found in the British Library, Royal MS 18 D ii, articles 2 and 3 (John Lyd-

gates TroyBook and Siege of Thebes), since the illustrations for these include a

miniature of a king holding an orb and a scepter, seated center under canopy, and

surrounded by courtiers, which is similar to the standard format used in many

Nova statuta manuscripts (see fig. 16 in Scott 1980b). MS Royal 18 D ii was com-

missioned by Sir William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke (d. 1469), and his wife Anne

Devereux (marriedin 1449), perhaps for presentation to Edward IV around 1461

1462, or to Henry VI around 14551456. Nevertheless, the 1365 depiction of

Charles V of France, seated and holding the symbols of his power, surrounded by

lords spiritual and temporal, in British Library, Cotton, Tiberius B. viii, c. 59v

(the Coronation Bookof Charles V) suggests that a similar model for depicting

kings appeared in France in the fourteenth century (see OMeara 2001).

44. Other manuscripts of theNova statuta that use the standardized representation of

the king and court for most of their historiated initials include Oxford, St. Johns

College, MS 257; Holkham Hall, Norfolk, Library of the Earl of Leicester, MS

232; and London, British Library, MS Hargrave 274.

45. For example, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Hatton 10 uses the standardized scene

only for the last two of its eight historiated initials: its first six initials feature each

monarchs badge animal instead; and Cambridge, Harvard University, Houghton

Library, MS Richardson 40 has the standardized scene only for the last of its three

royal portaits (Scott 1980b, 66).


23/55


tions of each king. For example, the historiated initials in San Marino,

Huntington Library MS HM 19920 and Cambridge (MA), Harvard Law

School MS 21 show the enthroned king alone. Cambridge (UK), St. Johns

College MS A. 7, and Lincolns Inn MS Hale 194 have some initials thatshow the king enthroned and receiving a text (the statutes?), while the ini-

tials in MS Yates Thompson 48 depict kings standing alone and holding

scepter and orb (Plate 9). In all these representations, however, the king re-

mains the visual and thematic focus of the scene, a figure whose ultimate au-

thority as monarch is underscored by symbols of rulership.

Nevertheless, some copies of theNova statuta, such as Inner Temple MS

505 and the Fitzwilliam family copy, have historiated initials that do not de-

pict kings at all. It may be that some of these copies predate the standardized

model, which seems to have spread in the 1470s, as the market for these

books grew and speculative production began. Alternatively, such deviation

from conventions of illustration can also occur through the influence of pa-

trons.46 Such, I would argue, is also the case with the Yale copy of theNova

statuta, for its illustrations differ from those in all other copies of this text, de-

spite the fact that it was made by some of the same artists who worked on

those other copies. Even where the Yale manuscripts illustrations are most

like the standardized model of king and court, we find an important differ-

ence. Though the portrait of Edward IV (Plate 2) in the Yale manuscript atfirst appears to follow the standardized format, close scrutiny of this initial re-

veals that the depiction of Edward IV does not follow the standard model as

thoroughly as the other copies using it: instead of holding a scepter and orb,

symbols of the kings rightful rule, the image of Edward IV in the Yale initial

holds only a sword, and he holds it in his left hand. Since even the illustra-

tors who used variations on the standardized image of the king with scepter

and orb in other copies of theNova statuta, such as Yates Thompson MS 48

(Plate 9), do not replace the scepter or the orb with a sword, this deviationfrom the standardized model suggests conscious intervention on the part of

the person or persons planning the illustrations.47

While in another context the depiction of a seated king holding an up-

right sword might symbolize his power as judge or embodiment of the law, in

the context of the YaleNova statuta this image suggests a subtle attempt to

46. See, for example, Scotts discussion (1989) of the influence of patrons on illustra-

tion of fifteenth-century English manuscripts.

47. I have not found any illustrations in other manuscript copies of theNova statuta or

descriptions of illustrations in other manuscript copies in which a king holds a

sword in either hand. The depiction of Edward IV in the Yale manuscript, there-

fore, would appear to be rare, if not unique, in copies of this text.


24/55


depict Edward IV as someone who used military power, rather than the laws

of succession, to become king.48 The Yale manuscripts depiction takes on its

significance in comparison with the series of five royal portraits that come

before it. Each of the first five kings appears kneeling before aprie-dieu, a for-mat that does not seem to recur in other copies of theNova statuta. Despite

differences in some details, which portray each king with distinguishing fea-

tures, this basic model remains constant throughout the depictions of the

first five kings.49 These representations of kingship include symbols of sover-

eign rulership, such as scepter and crown, yet these illustrations depict the

kings on their knees in prayer, demonstrating their piety and humility before

God. If the standardized portraits showing the king flanked by courtiers are

thought to emphasize the kings power as sovereign law-giver, the Yale por-

traits might remind readers that a kings power to rule derives from a divine

law-giver, who authorizes kings to act as earthly representatives of divine jus-

tice. This is also the argument made in the opening sections of Fortescues De

laudibus legum Angliae: while encouraging Prince Edward to study the laws of

England, the chancellor argues that earthly kings should also pray for divine

guidance in their pursuit of justice: Sed quia ista sine gracia lex operari

nequit tibi, illam super omnia implorare necesse est; legis quoque divine et

sanctarum scripturarum indagarer scienciam tibi congruit (But because

this law cannot flourish in you without grace, it is necessary to pray for thatabove all things; also it is fitting for you to seek knowledge of the divine law

and holy scripture, De laudibus [Chrimes 1942, 1819]). Likewise, in her

treatise on acts of war and chivalry, Christine de Pizan claims that kings who

fight wars for just cause fulfill the royal responsibility to maintain the har-

48. The seals of English kings in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries held the image

of the enthroned monarch holding scepter and orb on one side as a representation

of royal justice and an image of the monarch on horseback holding an upright

sword on the other side as a representation of royal military power (Watts 1996,

21). If the images of kings holding scepters and orbs inNova statuta manuscripts

echo the seals image of justice, the depiction of Edward IV in the Yale manuscript

again departs from tradition. On the king as lex animata, see above, note 14. Clas-

sical personifications of justice often hold an upright sword, and in Christian ico-

nography the Archangel Michael often holds an upright sword in his depiction as

agent of divine justice. See the terms Schwert, Recht,Justicia, and Kaiserin Kirsch-

baum 19681976.

49. These distinguishing features differ considerably from the royal portraits in the

standardizedNova statuta manuscripts that Scott discusses. For analysis of the de-

velopments in royal portraiture in France and England beginning in the four-

teenth century, see Sherman 1969; Thomas 1979, 65; and Whittingham 1971.


25/55


mony of earthly and divine law (14). With each of the kings in its first five

portraits shown at prayer with an open book on theprie-dieu before him, the

Yale Nova statuta manuscript offers visual reinforcement of the ideals put

forth in these treatises.The full significance of the difference between the first five illustrations

and the last illustration becomes clearer when we note that the first five

portraits echo the depictions of King David at prayer that appear in many

liturgical and devotional books in the late Middle Ages.50 The Yale manu-

scripts use of King David as a model for its first five illustrations seems to

associate these English monarchs with the great biblical king. In corona-

tion rituals, the visual arts, and literature, King David was depicted as an

important model for medieval rulers, both because he represented the uni-

fication of secular and divine authority and because his story reinforced the

importance of royal piety and humility.51 King David was also one of the

Nine Worthies, or chivalric heroes, named by Jacques de Longuyon in his

poem Les Voeux du Paon (ca. 1310)a pantheon who then appeared

widely in late medieval and Renaissance literature and visual arts.52

50. See Owens 1989 for examples. Although some of these illustrations depict David

praying in the wilderness or against an abstract background, others present David

in architectural contexts, either kneeling before an altar or aprie-dieu, sometimes

with a throne behind him. The scenes described as at prayer and communicat-

ing with God are studied in Hourihane 2002. Fifteenth-century English manu-

scripts that depict David kneeling in prayer before aprie-dieu include Cape Town,

National Library of South Africa, MS Grey 4 c 5, c. 36r; Turin, Biblioteca Nazio-

nale Universitaria, MS I. 1. 9, c. 82v; London, British Library, MS Royal 1. E. ix,

c. 153r; and Nottingham, University Library, Wollaton Antiphonal, c. 213r. See

Scott 1996, 1: plate 121; 2: 101, 135, and 204.

51. On this topic, see Kantorowicz 1958, 5659, 64; Tudor-Craig 1989; Hen

1998;and Hobbs 2003. One important example is John Gowers late fourteenth-

century poem Le Miroir de lhomme cites David as the mirror and exemplar for all

other kings (especially vv. 22 and 873884 [see Fisher1964, 182, for a discussion

of the passage]).

52. See Schrder1971. Dutton and Kessler (1997, 78, 4344, and 8799) note an

earlier royal manuscript that suggests David as a model for kings and emphasizes

the monarchs role as upholder of the law is the Bible given to the young Charles

the Bald by the Benedictine abbey of St. Martin at Tours in 845 (Paris, Biblio-

thque nationale, Lat. 1). The illustrations in this manuscript and the dedicatory

poems addressed to Charles the Bald establish parallels between the new king and

David and encourage the king to read the Bible as divine law and to uphold jus-

tice as his primary responsibility: justice [. . .] is one of the main themes binding

together dedicatory poems and illustration (Dutton and Kessler1997, 44).


26/55


In representing five of its six kings as iconographic reflections of King

David, the YaleNova statuta associates the first five with an important me-

dieval ideal of kingship and differentiates them from Edward IV, whose de-

piction involves very different imagery. As visual texts that accompanythe statutes, the first five illustrations suggest to the reader not that kings

are the sovereign givers of law (as Hayward 1975 argues), but that human

laws and rulers are secondary to the divine law of the heavenly king.

Though the human king is physically central to the image, he is shown on

his knees in petition to a higher authority and as both earthly ruler and

spiritual servant of the heavenly king. The Yale manuscripts treatment of

what should have been a standardized depiction of the king with his court

in the case of Edward IV becomes an ironic commentary on his different at-

titude toward divine law. One might see a similar argument implicit in

Fortescues De laudibus, although it presents images of the kings in reverse

order: Fortescue first associates the usurping Edward IV with the most un-

speakable madness (nephandissima rabie) of civil war and then praises

Henry VI as the most pious king (piissimus rex [De laudibus, 2]). Fortes-

cues equation establishes a parallel between Henry and the good kings of

the Old Testament who ruled wisely because they studied the book of

Gods laws.

Applied to Henry VI and Edward IV, Fortescues contrast betweenHenry VI and Edward IV and the depictions of these two kings in the Yale

manuscript are strikingly similar, especially when we examine in detail the

portrait of Henry VI. An important feature of many depictions of King

David in medieval psalters and books of hours is the image of the face or

hand of God that appears in the heavens, often with golden rays shining

down on David. In the Yale manuscript this feature of the traditional David

iconography appears only in the initial depicting Henry VI (Plate 6), and

only in muted form: the circular blue area in the upper-right corner of thishistoriated initial has facial characteristics that represent the face of God,

just as we find in the depictions of David in an English psalter that has been

dated to the early fifteenth century (Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Don. d.

85 [see Plate 10]).53 The circular blue area in the historiated initial for

Henry VI sends golden rays down upon Henry, just as the face or hand of

God more explicitly sheds gracious illumination in many of the depictions

53. Examples of this kind of depiction of the face of God in Bodleian Library MS

Don. d. 85 occur on cc. 21v, 29r, and 42v. For more details of this codex, see

Scott 1996, 1: plates 16871, and 2: no. 39; Pcht and Alexander1973, 3: no.

803, and plates LXXVI-VII; and de la Mare and Barker-Benfield 1980, no.

XVII. 3, and figs. 44 and 49.


27/55


28/55


Yale copy in using a standardized iconographic form for all of its historiated

initials, with variation only for Henry VI.57 Though Hargrave 274 mirrors

the veneration of Henry VI after his death, it offers no other distinctions

among the other depicted monarchs, whereas the Yale manuscript presentsa more complex (and clearly Lancastrian) program of illustration in its de-

piction of the relationship of kingship and law.

Although appropriating the iconography of King David in order to

depict a living king was not a widespread practice in the late medieval pe-

riod, Scotts discussion (1989, 4246, 61n70) of the patrons influence on

fifteenth-century manuscript illustration suggests that there are parallels

between the images of King David in prayer that accompanied psalms in

late medieval manuscripts and illustrations of unidentified praying figures

in codices from the same period which might be considered patron por-

traits. Representations of King David in psalters and books of hours seem

to have inspired many of the depictions of John of France, Duke of Berry, in

his famous devotional books, since he is often portrayed kneeling before a

prie-dieu with a depiction of Gods face appearing in an upper corner of the

illustration, especially in his Petites heures (Paris, Bibliothque nationale,

Lat. 18014), made in the late fourteenth century.58

Less easy to interpret are the figures in ceremonial robes, who appear

along with the kings in three of the first five initials in the Yale manuscript.Because these initials are those carried out by the second illustrator, the in-

troduction of these three figures might reflect a change in artist; but this runs

contrary to the care in continuity exhibited by the second illustrator. Since

the additional figures appear only in the initials depicting Henry IV, Henry

V, and Henry VI (Plates 4, 5, and 6), the mysterious figures serve to distin-

guish the Lancastrian kings from the first two kings in the series. The figures

ermine-adorned robes associate them with the court leaders, judges, or royal

counselors who flank Edward IV in the last initial; but the additional figuresin the three illuminations (Illustrator B) are not portrayed identically and

may represent different sorts of royal advisors: only the front figure in the ini-

tial depicting Henry VI has the sleeve stripes that identify him as a lawyer. In

addition, the position of these figures in the miniatures does not remain con-

stant: the first figure peers from behind the canopy in the initial depicting

Henry IV. A similar figure appears beside the king in the initial depicting

57. In this distinction, the Hargrave codex parallels the copy of the Nova statuta

owned by William Coote, which uses more elaborate decoration to highlight the

reign of Henry VI in contrast to the reigns of earlier kings. See above, note 28.

58. For detailed discussions of this manuscipt and its illustrations, see Meiss 1967,

figs. 83176; Avril, Dunlopp, and Yapp 1989; and Manion 1991.


29/55


Henry V. Two similar figures appear to the side of the royal canopy in the ini-

tial depicting Henry VI. These changes which span the three illustrations

create a narrative perhaps on the increasing role of counselors on legal mat-

ters during the reigns of the Lancastrian kings, a theme that is emphasized inChristine de Pisans Fais darmes et de chevalerie and Fortescues De laudibus.59

The figures that appear in the portraits of the Lancastrian monarchs thus re-

inforce the manuscripts celebration of the Lancastrian royal line, especially

Henry VI, as fulfilling the ideals of kingship enunciated by French and

English mirrors for princes in the fifteenth century.

As a sequence, the historiated initials depicting Edward III through Ed-

ward IV in the Yale Law School manuscript parallel the Lancastrian polemi-

cal writings of the 1450s and 1460s, including the Lancastrian mirrors for

princes written or commissioned by members of the Lancastrian court in

personal contact with Prince Edward: George Ashby, John Fortescue, and

Viscount Beaumont. In addition, Fortescues treatise encouraging Prince Ed-

ward to study English law from his personal copy suggests that the prince

either already possessed a copy of theNova statuta or was about to receive one

as a gift. Nevertheless, this link need not mean that Fortescue himself com-

missioned the Yale manuscript for the prince or that the manuscript was

begun at the time depicted in Fortescues treatise, that is during his exile in

France with the prince and queen from 14631471. Indeed, most of the workon the manuscript must have been completed before the royal family went

into exile in 1461. Nevertheless, given additional statutes for 14611468 that

appear in the manuscript, supplementary work would have been required.

The evidence points to Margaret as the person who first commissioned

the book as a gift for Prince Edward from his parents. At the same time that

the Yale manuscript has important connections to the Lancastrian trea-

tises, it also has links with texts and iconographic traditions closely associ-

ated with Margaret of Anjou or her family. As we have seen, the YaleNovastatuta echoes themes in the Christine de Pizan treatise that Margaret re-

ceived as a wedding gift. It also echoes other traditions with which Marga-

ret had contact, either in France or England. For example, Margaret

certainly knew about the representation of King David as one of the Nine

Worthies by August 1456, when she and Prince Edward were welcomed to

Coventry with a pageant depicting these noble heroes that year.60 She was

59. Christine contends that the wise king will seek advice from Parliament, including

elder statesmen, legal scholars, and representatives of the merchants and crafts-

men (17, 19, and 20).

60. It is not known if she suggested the theme or merely recognized its usefulness to

her cause. See Harris 1908, 28599.


30/55

34

A Statute Book and Lancastrian Mirror for Princes - The Yale Law School Manuscript of the Nova...

Documents

Transcript of A Statute Book and Lancastrian Mirror for Princes - The Yale Law School Manuscript of the Nova...