Le Livre de Seyntz Medicines

Henry of Grosmont's devotional-medical treatise[4][5] is notable for being one of only a few written by individuals of such rank and power in the Middle Ages,[6][note 1] and, to the historian K. B. McFarlane it is "the most remarkable literary achievement of them all" for the period.[10] William Pantin concurred, writing that it was, to him, "one of the most interesting and attractive religious treatises of the period, and especially remarkable as the work of a devout layman".[11] Antonia Gransden has described the piece as "an allegory on the wounds in Henry's soul, discussing the remedies to be supplied by the Divine Physician and his assistant, the Douce Dame", all the while interspersed with personal reminiscences of how he sinned in the first place.[12] Arnould places it within the genre of the Confessions, as well as "the prolific literature of sin".[13] Grosmont sententiously informs the reader how he wishes that when he was young he had "as much covetousness for the kingdom of heaven as I had for £100 of land".[14] He blames those parts of his body which he later accuses of sin: his feet are guilty, for example, of being unwilling to allow him on pilgrimage yet being willing and able to bring him wine.[14] Robert Ackerman has noted that, while Le Livre is an exceptional piece of work in its field, the field is a crowded one, arguing that "moralistic and confessional writings... were produced in overwhelming profusion. Duke Henry could scarcely have found a more time-worn topic and method of treatment when he penned his allegory of the sins and their remedies."[15]

It stands out from both of these categorisations due to its highly personal, almost autobiographical tone,[13] and avoids being merely an exemplum by the images of everyday life—"and finding in everyone a wealth of 'mystic' interpretations"—with which he illustrates the work.[16] Contemporaries understood that to cleanse the soul, one required self-knowledge; this was only obtainable after lengthy, close examination of the self, as Le Livre does.[17] Grosmont states at the beginning that he had numerous motives for writing the work, but the most important was to "make use of times which were wont to be idle in the service of God;"[18] in other words, following the church's dictum that the devil makes work for idle hands.[19] The lengths of paragraphs would appear to reflect the amount of time the author had to work on that section each day, rather than reflect any pre-planning.[18] Structurally, the book is divided into two portions. The first describes the sinner's body, with its wounds of sin, while the second explains the spiritual cures and holy medicines necessary for its healing.[20]

Composition

Arnould describes the surviving Stonyhurst copy as being written in a bold, clear hand with each paragraph represented with a large gold initial[21] in a textualis hand.[22] This is accompanied by red and blue ornaments and numerous of his escutcheons and seals.[21] The title, suggests Catherine Batt, maybe a play on that of an earlier text by Matthaeus Platearius, which title in French was Livre des Simples Medicines.[23][note 2] The title is placed just before the explicit.[25] The book is written in the second person, personally directed to Christ in what Pantin calls a "very personal and affectionate way".[26] The prose is not universally popular however; Kaeuper moans that "I fear that some readers who struggle through its turgid prose and allegory gone to seed—244 pages in Anglo-Norman French—may think it penance to read",[27] while Fowler argues that it is "not remarkable"[28] and even Arnould says that in places it is "laborious".[29] It has occasionally been questioned whether Grosmont was the brains behind the work, or whether he had an amanuensis—something he denies in the text[30]—for example, Dominica Legge suggested that this was most likely to have been Grosmont's confessor and that if he could be identified, so would the source of the text's "peculiar quality".[31] Although possibly written by a scribe, Grosmont provides a postscript, including his name written—comments Arnould, "in a naive device prompted by his humbleness"—backwards anagramatically:[21][note 3]

Cest livre estoit comencee et parfaite en l'an de grace Nostre Seignur Jesu Crist MCCCLIIII. Et le fist un fole cheitif peccheour qe l'en appelle ERTSACNAL ED CUD IRNEH, a qi Dieux ses malfaitz pardoynt. Amen.[21]

The title of the work, written just above the explicit (f.67 r.): "Here ends the book that will be called "The Book of Holy Medicines".[33]

The book was composed, Teresa Tavormina suggests, "at the urging of friends" of the duke, possibly including[6] the Minoresses of Aldgate, whom he is known to have favoured[34]—or at the instruction of[12]—his confessor, around 1354.[6][note 4] In his opening remarks he says—"shades of a modern author's acknowledgements", comments Labarge—that they should receive equal credit with him for any benefit the book brings.[36] This was a protracted, and probably not easy, exercise for the duke, as whatever his education he had not been brought up in the expectation of ever facing such a task.[37] It is also unlikely that he was in a position to devote any length of time solely to the book's composition; although during this period war with France and Scotland was at a lull, a parliament took place at Westminster between April and May 1354 which he attended. He would also have had much business to attend to connected with his diplomatic mission to Pope Innocent VI in Avignon that October[18] and diplomatic negotiations with Cardinal Guy of Boulogne before then.[36] Tavormina surmises that it was composed in the months either side of Easter, with daily additions.[38] Comprising self-reflective, spiritual assessments, as well as religious contemplations on Christ and the Virgin, Grosmont wrote both for his own genuflection and others' edification.[38] A means of focussing himself on Christ's sacrifice and keeping him from sin, it served as an alternative to traditional forms of devotion, such as prayer.[39]

Grosmont's focus on mortality reflected a renewed interest in the topic which had appeared in the years following the Black Death in 1348 and sporadically since, with a concomitant emphasis on penance regardless of social status.[40] The Bible made it clear to the nobility that, whereas the poor were almost certain to enter heaven, the rich had no such guarantees, and as such the Black Death may have made a more intellectual impact on the aristocracy than the lower classes.[40]

Grosmont's acknowledgment of authorship; his title, in a reversed hand is on the third line (f.68 r.):

"This book was and finished in the year of grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ 1354: and an ignorant wretched sinner made it, called retsacnaL foekud yrneH and may god forgive his misdeeds. Amen"[41]

Portrait of Henry, Duke of Lancaster – William Bruges's Garter Book (c.1440–1450), f.8 – BL Stowe MS 594

The son and heir of Henry, 3rd Earl of Lancaster, and Maud Chaworth, Grosmont became one of King Edward III's most trusted captains in the early phases of the Hundred Years' War and distinguished himself with victory in the Battle of Auberoche.[66] A late 14th-century chronicler described him as "one of the best warriors in the world",[67] while Froissart calls him "a good knight" and a "valiant lord, wise and imaginative".[55] Thomas Grey, writing a few years after Grosmont, called the duke "wise, full of glory, and valiant, and in his youth eager for honour and feats of arms, and before his death, a fiercely devout Christian".[68] Several modern historians have agreed with this assessment;[42][note 9] Margaret Wade Labarge, for example, has called him "one of the outstanding figures of a reign which abounded in colourful chivalric personalities".[72] Grosmont, made Earl of Derby in 1337, Lancaster on his father's death in 1345[73] and a founding member and the second Knight of the Order of the Garter three years later. In 1351 he was created Duke of Lancaster, only the second such creation and the first non-royal dukedom.[74][note 10] He was the wealthiest and most powerful peer of the realm,[66] but, comments Janet Coleman, he was no scholar,[75] something Grosmont readily admits; while his discussion of things religious is broad, imaginative and wide-ranging, he himself points out that he deliberately avoids "profound matters".[76][note 11]

St Mary de Castro from Castle Yard

Written in Anglo Norman[38] —the French dialect of medieval England[99]—the Livre[note 15] tells historians something as to Duke Henry's own upbringing and personality through his own words. He says he was a good looking youth, for example, but, as he was English, knew little French, and the learning that he had, had come to him late in life.[4] Although Fowler comments that "on the latter point he was modest about his own accomplishment",[4] Tavormina argues that this was not necessarily to be taken literally, as a number of similar expressions of self-apology are found in other contemporaneous texts and should be seen as intentional humility.[6] On the other hand, suggests Batt, the breadth of his observations may include references to the Divine Comedy, and even if not, Le Livre "is clearly the work of a well-read and cultured author".[100] Coleman suggests there is a tension between the admiration Grosmont had for the French language—being "respectful, rather humble" towards it—and his career as a great fighter in France against all things French.[75]

Grosmont may have been influenced by othern writers, such as Guillaume de Deguileville, whose treatment of the Lady Sloth character is similar to his,[101] and even though he is not known to have possessed many books, he probably had access to Leicester Abbey's[102] extensive library, which included over eighty medical books.[103] Batt suggests that the lack of direct influence is useful in itself as a historical reference point as, having "no obvious identifiable single source",[23] it sheds direct light on Grosmont's activities—more precisely, his view of his activities—over the preceding decade.[81] Although Le Livre rarely touches on chivalry,[104] Arnould has noted a stark difference in the Grosmont known to contemporaries and thence to historians—the great general, diligent royal servant and epitome of chivalry—and the one he presents himself, "so ingenuously humble and sometimes crudely frank".[42] He also displays qualities of tenderness, dignity and "gentle candour" through his writing.[48] These qualities are not, however, incompatible, argues Arnould, as the piety the author demonstrates combined with a lack of animosity towards enemies may back up the chivalric image rather than impinge upon it.[42] Batt argues that Grosmont personifies the contradictions inherent in the medieval chivalric ideal vis-à-vis the warrior knight and the penitent Christian.[105] The book also suggests the extent of Grosmont's own medical knowledge, and more broadly the extent to which continental expertise had impacted England; Grosmont's personal physician was from Bologna, for example. New medical concepts entwined with traditional religion as well; a confessional text from Exeter of 1340, for example, uses a similar metaphor to Grosmont, proposing that "Christ is the best physician".[106] Grosmont also points out that wisest of physicians, as such is Christ, will not waste his precious medicine on the incurable.[107]

Janet Coleman has pointed out that by this period, the English nobility was reading for both edification and pleasure,[75] and Tavormina notes that the work's readership would have to be learned in French, which would have comprised the educated nobility,[2] lawyers, ecclesiastics and upper-middle-classes:[38] "a small religious elite", says linguist William Rothwell, and as such a very limited audience.[58] It is one of the few devotional treatises which addresses the reader as well as the author; most of the period tended to be directed at the latter as if from an unknown superior. Le Livre, though, is as conscious of the author's sins as his audience's.[108] Le Livre may have been a direct influence on John Gower's Mirour de l'Omme of lsaterr in the century; both are directed primarily to an English social class who had the financial and social independence to control their own regious activity.[109]

Grosmont, notes Tavormina, "was remembered as the author of a devotional treatise for at least a century after his death".[38] Mary de Percy, widow of John, Lord Ros, left a copy to Isabel Percy in 1394. Mary was connected to Grosmont through her father, whose first wife—not Mary's mother— was Grosmont's younger sister. This is not, however, the copy that descended through to Duke Humphrey, as that was presented to him by Thomas Carew, who died in 1429.[110][111] The same copy appears to have been previously owned by John de Grailly, Captal de Buch, as both his and Humphrey's armorials are inscribed on various pages.[27]

Another reference to Le Livre comes in 1400, in the catalogue of Titchfield Abbey library, although this copy appears not to have had the title it was given by Grosmont, or indeed any other colophon.[112] Later medieval historians drew clear links between Grosmont's political activity, and importance, and his piety. The chronicler Thomas Walsingham, for example, describes Grosmont as symbolically supporting his grandson's accession to the throne in 1399 by supposedly writing him a letter recounting the benefits of a chrism—which the author claimed to have brought back from the Holy Land—to new kings. In Batt's words, Walsingham "seamlessly links the divine and the political", with Grosmont the denominator. Thomas Otterbourne, writing around 1420, uses Grosmont as a trope for opening his own treatise, by explaining how the duke begs for mercy for his sins while simultaneously giving thanks for the good things he has enjoyed along the way.[113] A late 14th century redaction of Edmund of Abingdon's Mirour de Seinte Eglyse also aligns Grosmont's piety with his wealth and power:

Þou þat neuere seȝe Duyk Henri,
Þat þe newe werk of Leycetre reised on hiȝ:
Þer-þi maiȝt þou wel wyte and se
Þat he was lord of gret pouste [power]
Þat hit made of his ownc cost—
I hope he naue þeron not lost.[114]

Grosmont's college in Leicester (the "new werke", also a play on its location) is used as an example of his earthly power and wealth, which the poet then explains has been turned, on Grosmont's death, into spiritual wealth ("I hope he naue þeron not lost").[115]

Grosmont's Livre was originally produced in 26 folios, at least one of which was a family copy as denoted by his armorial decorating page borders; this version ended up—Maya, Mexica—in the extensive library of his great-grandson Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester.[6] Copies may have been made in Grosmont's lifetime.[22] Two entire copies are known of in the 21st century, one held at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and the other at Stonyhurst College, Lancashire. The substantive contents of both are identical, with only minor linguistic differences separating them.[116] The Stonyhurst MS is the earliest, and also the most decorated with numerous coats of arms;[117] that of Cambridge, while looking more modest, says Batt, has an "elegant blue animal skin chemise binding".

[118]

The Livre had never been published until Henry Arnould's 1940 edition, which he based primarily on the Stonyhurst copy but compiled after examination of both that and the Cambridge copy.[22] Arnould had intended for his edition to be accompanied by an extensive introduction, but this had to be curtailed on account of World War II breaking out in September 1939.[119][note 16] Although Arnould promised a far fuller introduction than he was forced to provide, this did not appear until 1948, in French and published in Paris, and as such without the momentum of the original edition.[120][note 17] Rothwell argues that medievalists will not find Arnould's description of Grosmont's life providing anything new to the field, or "have scant concern with the following hundred pages dealing in minute detail with the phonology, morphology, and a few syntactical points relating to the language".[120][note 18]

Le Livre offers, argues Arnould, "an allegorical, but autobiographical, account of Henry's sins and penances".[123] Arnould had argued in 1937 that it was odd that the Livre—"the author of which is also one of the most prominent men of his time—should have hitherto passed unnoticed".[124] He compares its "picturesque style" with that of St Francis de Sales,[125] while Ackerman has suggested that, with its "engaging, anecdotal charm" it is close to the spirit of the Ancrene Riwle,[15] which Grosmont probably knew of, either in English or French.[126] The historian Scott L. Waugh has contextualised the Livre as being part of an "intense" lay involvement in religious affairs in the mid-14th century, more obviously seen in the building of chantries and chapels by the former for the latter. But the Livre, says Waugh, is "the most spectacular evidence" historians have for this phenomenon. Waugh notes that, while his patronage of the church was extremely generous, it was also a conventional expression of piety: "his Livre was not."[78] McFarlane has argued that the Livre indicates the existence, in the nobility, of a class who were not only active in their traditional roles—warfare, royal service, estate management, for example—possessed "quite remarkable versatility, accomplishments and taste", and casts further light—"a third dimension"—on historians' knowledge of the intellectual activities and abilities of the English aristocracy.[127]

Richard Kaeuper argues that—as its ownership by men such as de Grailly suggests—it was highly valued in the chivalric world.[27] He also argues that the book demonstrates Grosmont's belief in the efficacy of imitating Christ through the martial life, not just in the sacrifices it forces one to make but as a form of penance.[65] It is notable in Pantin's view for discussing Christology from the perspective of the layman rather than the professional.[128] Conversely, Andrew Taylor has argued that Grosmont demonstrates a tendency to be refractory in his recital of his own sins, perhaps suggesting that rejects absolute humility, even before Christ: "for all his religious instruction, [Grosmont] remained perversely attached to his own sinful body".[129]. Labarge suggests that its importance to historians lies not so much in its colourful symbolism but Grosmont's extensive, and detailed, use of his own personal experiences to illustrate his message.[45] In its literary value, it has been compared—as a "valuable analogue"—to better-known works with similar messages such as Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.[130] Indeed, it has been suggested that Grosmont is an "outstanding candidate" of patron to the Gawain's now-anonymous author—and the basis for the eponymous hero—as the poem "would have appealed to every facet of Henry's complex character".[131][note 19]

Grosmont's work is also important, argues Catherine Batt, for what it says about the extent and knowledge of medieval medical knowledge. While predominantly metaphorical and allusional—Christ the doctor, Mary the nurse—it also reflects the practical medical knowledge of its author (for example, the practical efficacy of herbs in the springtime).[133] This knowledge, she suggests, shaped his overall philosophy and religion.[23] Batt also argues, however, that there are elements of what to modern perception are found in a situation comedy, particularly in the character sloth, which she calls "arguably the most engaging of Henry’s projections of his own sinful self". Lady Sloth is portrayed as taking advantage of an honourable man by getting herself invited in—when no man of honour would turn a lady at his gate away—and then abusing his hospitality.[134] That Grosmont is confessing to being a practitioner of her vice makes him more receptive to it and so makes it easier for her to stay.[135]

Sloth comes to the gate of the ear and begs to be let in, because she is very sick, and says that just as soon as she has rested a little while she will go; and she does so much that she gets in, and once she is here she goes to bed and falls asleep. And should anyone come to the gate and say: ‘I am a friend of Lady Sloth, let me come in to comfort her’, the gate will be very quickly opened to let in one of her friends, who is then eager to comfort Sloth by saying: ‘Lady, don’t worry about anything at all, except your comfort, and especially the comfort of the body; and we shall think about the soul some other day, when we are old and shall have nothing else to do.[134]

Christopher Fletcher, discussing what Le Livre tells of the role of the nobility—and especially the martial nobility—in religion, argues that it is probably one of the few works of the period to address the contradiction between the secular and the ecclesiastic in religion. Le Livre, says Fletcher, raises the question as to who is the better Christian: "the priest, who is a man, but who can neither marry nor shed blood? Or a nobleman, who knows what it is to be a good Christian—thanks to his confessors, preachers and his own upbringing—but who lives in a competitive and violent world, and who desires other women than his wife?"[136]

• Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, Peniarth, 388 c 2, p. 1-52.
• Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, Parker Library, 218, f. 1ra-68ra.
• Hatfield, Hatfield House, Cecil Papers, 312.
• Hurst Green, Stonyhurst College, 24 (HMC 27), f. 1ra-126ra.