As MS. notes in old books have been regarded as fit matter for this
journal, I would contribute two or three from a copy of Peter Lombard's
_Book of Sentences_, printed at Vienna in 1477. This has not only passed
through divers hands before it came into mine, but several previous
owners have left their names in it, and one of them very numerous
marginal comments. Of these the earliest appears to have been Thomas
Wallwell or T. Swallwell, a monk of Durham, who, from the handwriting,
which is of the fifteenth century, I conclude was the marginal
commentator. He has availed himself of the "Laus Deo" below the colophon
to add "q' Ts. Wallwell monachus ecclesiæ cathedralis Dunelmensis." The
words are abbreviated, but I have given them at length except the first,
which, instead of being a _q_, with a comma, is a _q_ with an oblique
line through it, that I thought might baffle the printer. The comments
are very scholastic, and such as would then have been considered much to
the purpose. It is possible some reader of this journal may be able to
supply information respecting this erudite monk.
The next owner, judging by the handwriting, which seems little, if at
all, later than 1500, has thus recorded his ownership on the blank side
of the last leaf:
"Istius libri verus est possessor dominus Stephanus Merleye."
He was probably a priest, but I have discovered no annotations by him;
though, as there is scarcely a page without writing on it, there may be
some.
However, the note to which I would more particularly invite attention is
at the top of the first page, and in the handwriting, I think, of the
above-mentioned monk. It is in abbreviated Latin, but read in extenso it
runs thus:
"Sententiæ Petri Lumbardi fratris Graciani qui decretum
compilavit, et etiam Petri Comestoris, qui scholasticam historiam
edidit et alia. Iste Petrus Lumbardus fecit istud opus, edidit
glossas psalterii et Epistolarum et plura alia. Fuit etiam
episcopus Parisiensis. Isti tres fratres uterini erant, et
floruerunt anno salutis 1154, qui fuit annus ab origine mundi
6353."
Over the word Graciani is interlined "monachi" in the same hand. In this
statement two things are remarkable:--1. The allegation that these three
well-known writers of the twelfth century were uterine brothers. 2. The
mundane era. The former is hardly reconcileable with the generally
received account of them, but it is not altogether new. Cave, writing of
Gratian, adverts to a story of their having been brothers in the
following words:
"Non desunt plurimi qui Gratianum, Petri Lombardi, Petrique
Comestoris germanum fuisse volunt, matremque tergeminos hos
fratres ex furtivo concubitu conceptos uno partu edidisse, quod
quidem nullo satis gravis autoris testimonio
fulcitur."--_Scriptores Eccl._, vol. ii. p. 216.
I am not going to advocate this story, for it is most likely false; and
the monk's statement may not be correct; but as it is less improbable,
it may be worth recording. Peter Lombard died in 1164. Gratian completed
the Decretum about 1151, and probably survived some years, but I have
not met with the date of his death. Peter Comestor died in 1198. They
may therefore have all been contemporaries, though the last must have
lived to a good old age, unless he were considerably younger than the
others.
With regard to the mundane era by which the writer computed, it will be
found to differ materially, not only from that now in common use among
ourselves, but also from all that are mentioned by Sir H. Nicolas in his
_Chronology of History_; for it assumes the Nativity to have occurred in
the year of the world 5199. This, however, agrees with what appears to
have been recognised as the era of the creation by the western churches
from about the beginning of the fifth century (see De Vaine's
_Dictionnaire Raisonné de Diplomatique_, voce _Comput_), though from
some cause it seems to have been almost overlooked by modern writers in
this country.
I have not attempted to explain the "_[q=]_" before Ts. Wallwell. It may
have meant "quoth," or "quæsit;" but I am not satisfied with anything
that has occurred to me. It stands thus:
"_Laus Deo. [q=]_, T_s_Wallwell
Mo'cs ec[=c]le cathedralis dune[=l]m."
"Ts." for Thomas is not usual, but those are clearly the letters: I have
tried to read the "_s_" (which may have been meant for a capital) with
the surname, but Swallwell is a stranger cognomen than that I have
attributed to the monk. Some correspondent conversant with Durham may
possibly recognise the name in one of its forms.